Gérard V. La Forest

The appellant operated a sex boutique and was convicted of possessing obscene articles for the purpose of sale under s. 159(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The police seized various sex stimulators displayed in the store, which had a 'For Adults Only' sign on the door.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the articles were 'publications' because their character was made public by the store's signs and display.

The Court also affirmed that the target audience is irrelevant in determining obscenity, and that the lower courts properly applied the community standard of tolerance.

The appellant operated a telephone sales 'boiler room' in Toronto, fraudulently inducing United States residents to purchase worthless shares in Central American mining companies.

The victims sent their money to Central America, and the appellant brought a portion of the proceeds back to Canada.

The appellant challenged his committal for trial on the basis that the essential element of the fraud (the deprivation) occurred outside Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, establishing that Canadian courts have jurisdiction over transnational offences if there is a 'real and substantial link' between the offence and Canada, which was satisfied by the scheme being devised and operated in Toronto.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and rape, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender and sentence of indeterminate detention.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding the verdict was not unreasonable based on the identification evidence.

The Court also found no error in the dangerous offender proceedings and dismissed the appeal from sentence.

The appellant, a former bank manager in the Bahamas, was called as a Crown witness in a Canadian income tax prosecution.

He refused to testify about specific bank customers and transactions, arguing that doing so would subject him to criminal prosecution under Bahamian bank secrecy laws and violate his rights under section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant was a compellable witness and that section 7 of the Charter did not apply, as any deprivation of liberty would result from the operation of foreign law, not Canadian law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their rape convictions arising from a joint judge-alone trial, arguing that the Crown's overly aggressive and improper cross-examination of one accused required a new trial.

The court held that, even assuming jurisdiction based on a dissent over prejudice, the majority below made no error in finding the cross-examination did not prejudice the accused.

The trial judge's convictions rested on credibility findings and supporting evidence rather than on the impugned cross-examination.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no miscarriage of justice was found.

The appellant attempted to repossess his vehicles while armed with a rifle, which he loaded and pointed at the victim.

He was convicted of attempted armed robbery, using a firearm while attempting to commit an indictable offence, possession of a weapon, and pointing a firearm.

The trial judge stayed the possession charge but entered convictions on the others.

On appeal, the appellant argued the multiple convictions violated the common law Kienapple principle and sections 7 and 11(h) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Kienapple principle did not prevent convictions for both armed robbery and using a firearm, as the latter requires the additional element of 'use'.

The Court also found no breach of fundamental justice under the Charter.

However, the Court quashed the conviction for pointing a firearm, finding that it offended the Kienapple principle when combined with the conviction for using a firearm.

The respondent teacher was required by her collective agreement to retire at age 65, pursuant to The Public Schools Act.

She sought a declaration that this mandatory retirement provision contravened the prohibition against age discrimination in The Human Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that human rights legislation is fundamental law that prevails over conflicting general legislation unless an express exception is created.

The Court found that the re-enactment of The Public Schools Act did not implicitly repeal the human rights protections, and the mandatory retirement provision was therefore invalid.

The wife applied for a division of matrimonial assets but died before the application was heard.

In her will, she disinherited her husband and son.

Her executrix continued the application.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal ordered an unequal distribution in favour of the husband, citing the wife's death and will as extraordinary circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the death of a spouse and the contents of their will are not relevant factors to justify departing from the presumption of equal distribution under the Matrimonial Property Act.

A police officer was dismissed by the disciplinary committee after being found guilty of shoplifting.

The appellant union filed a grievance, and the arbitrator substituted the dismissal with a thirteen-month suspension without pay, finding the original penalty too severe.

The respondent applied for a writ of evocation, which was denied by the Superior Court but granted by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction under the Labour Code by imposing a penalty not explicitly available to the disciplinary committee, as his decision did not constitute an abuse of power amounting to fraud or flagrant injustice.

The appellant airline brought a direct action in nullity to challenge a municipal by-law and subsequent resolutions that imposed a business tax.

The municipality's enabling legislation required the business tax to be imposed by by-law, but the municipality passed a by-law delegating the power to set the annual tax rate to itself by way of resolution.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality exceeded its jurisdiction by authorizing itself to do by resolution what the legislature required to be done by by-law.

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the by-law and resolutions, and ordered the municipality to reimburse the taxes paid.

The appellant husband appealed an order granting the respondent wife exclusive lifetime possession of the matrimonial home under the Family Law Reform Act, arguing it was invalid or inoperative due to paramountcy when joined with a maintenance order under the Divorce Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that an order for exclusive possession is not a support order, and the provisions of the two statutes are not mutually exclusive.

The Court found no conflict between the federal and provincial legislation, as they confer independent jurisdictions in relation to different subject matters that complement each other.

The appellant union and employees sought an injunction to prevent a group lay-off, arguing the employer failed to provide the 16 weeks' notice required by section 60 of the Canada Labour Code.

The employer relied on section 30(c) of the Canada Labour Standards Regulations, which deemed a lay-off not to be a termination if employees were recalled within six months.

The appellants argued this regulation was ultra vires as it breached the spirit of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was validly enacted under the specific authority granted to the Governor in Council by section 60.2(d) of the Code.

The respondent was convicted of operating its crushing plants without an approved dust exhaust system, contrary to an order made by the Deputy Minister of Social Affairs.

The Superior Court quashed the convictions, holding that the order could only be made by the Minister in person, which the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, concluding that under s. 55 of the Public Health Act, the Minister must exercise emergency powers 'himself', meaning in person, rendering the Deputy Minister's order void.

The appellant was acquitted of impaired driving after presenting an alibi defence.

He was subsequently charged with perjury regarding his testimony at the first trial.

The trial judge acquitted him on the basis of issue estoppel, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that issue estoppel applies to prevent the Crown from re-litigating an issue decided in the accused's favour unless it tenders new evidence that was not available by reasonable diligence at the time of the first trial.

The appellants appealed their convictions, raising issues regarding court election under s. 429.1 of the Criminal Code and the admission of similar fact evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that where an accused consents to be tried by a judge who is not a judge of the superior court of criminal jurisdiction, the Attorney General may choose trial before either a county/district court judge and jury or a supreme court judge and jury.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's admission of similar fact evidence or the jury charge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was injured during a snowmobile race when he collided with a signal official who had moved onto the track.

He sued the race association and the official for negligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the lower courts' dismissal of the action, finding that a waiver clause in the race entry form validly exonerated the respondents from liability.

The Court held that the clause was not unconscionable or contrary to public policy, as the appellant voluntarily participated in a dangerous sport without any social or economic pressure.

The appellant appealed a judgment declaring an agreement of purchase and sale of land to be void.

The agreement provided a closing date of January 21, 1970, and expressly stated that time was of the essence.

The appellant had the right to postpone the closing date but took no steps to do so.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that any other interpretation would leave the agreement open indefinitely.

The appellant, a police officer, sought judicial review to declare his resignation invalid, alleging it was obtained through lengthy interrogation and threats to prosecute.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a true and continuing intent to resign up to the time it was accepted by the Commissioner.

Consequently, there was no exercise of a statutory power of decision that would give rise to judicial review.

The appellant was charged with bankruptcy offences relating to false statements made under oath.

The trial judge excluded the statements under section 13 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that section 13 does not apply where the very essence of the offence is the giving of false testimony.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding whether a trial court loses jurisdiction over an indictment when it fails to proceed at the time set for trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that reasonable procedural latitude is desirable in proceedings pursuant to indictment.

The Court concluded that there is no loss of jurisdiction when a trial court fails to proceed at the scheduled time, absent unconstitutional conduct.