Graham Garton

The appellant posted federal election results from Atlantic Canada on his website before polling stations had closed in other parts of the country, violating s. 329 of the Canada Elections Act.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the publication ban infringes freedom of expression, it is a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The majority found that the ban serves the pressing and substantial objective of ensuring informational equality among voters and maintaining public confidence in the electoral system, and that the salutary effects of the brief delay in publication outweigh its deleterious effects.

The respondent requested access to government documents relating to his prosecution for regulatory offences, which had been quashed or stayed.

The government denied access to many documents, claiming solicitor-client privilege under s. 23 of the Access to Information Act, which was interpreted to include litigation privilege.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that litigation privilege, unlike legal advice privilege, expires with the litigation that gave rise to it, absent closely related proceedings.

Since the penal proceedings had terminated and the respondent's civil action for abuse of process was not closely related, the litigation privilege had expired and the documents were not exempt from disclosure.

The respondent mortgage company purchased trailers and leased them back to the vendor to claim a substantial capital cost allowance (CCA) and offset revenue from other leased assets.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the respondent and disallowed the CCA claim under the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR).

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the transaction resulted in a tax benefit and was an avoidance transaction, it was not abusive tax avoidance under s. 245(4) of the Income Tax Act.

The Court found that the transaction was consistent with the object, spirit, and purpose of the CCA provisions, which permit deductions based on the cost of assets acquired, regardless of the economic risk involved.

The appellants, arm's length taxpayers, sought to deduct over $10 million in losses against their own incomes through a series of transactions involving partnerships.

The original losses belonged to an insolvent trust company, which transferred a portfolio of mortgages with unrealized losses to a non-arm's length partnership.

The trust company then sold its interest in the partnership to an arm's length party, and the appellants subsequently joined a new partnership to claim their proportionate shares of the losses.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the appellants and applied the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to disallow the deductions.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that allowing the appellants to claim the losses would defeat the purposes of s. 18(13) and the partnership provisions of the Income Tax Act, thereby constituting abusive tax avoidance.

The appellant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, sought a confidentiality order for technical documents related to the environmental assessment of nuclear reactors being built in China.

The Federal Court Trial Division and Federal Court of Appeal denied the order.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada established the test for granting confidentiality orders in civil litigation, adapting the Dagenais/Mentuck framework.

The Court held that a confidentiality order should be granted when necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important interest, such as a commercial interest, and when the salutary effects of the order outweigh its deleterious effects on the open court principle and freedom of expression.

Applying this test, the Court allowed the appeal and granted the confidentiality order.

The respondent's fishing vessel was seized for fishing without a licence.

While the vessel was detained, the Federal Court ordered its sale in a separate civil action, and the proceeds were held by the Receiver General.

The respondent was subsequently convicted of Fisheries Act offences, and the sentencing judge ordered forfeiture of $50,000 of the proceeds of the sale.

The Court of Appeal overturned the forfeiture, holding that physical detention of the vessel was a precondition to forfeiture under the Fisheries Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that s. 72(1) of the Fisheries Act authorizes a provincial superior court to order forfeiture of the proceeds of a vessel's sale even when sold under the authority of the Federal Court.

The respondent, a Mohawk of Akwesasne, crossed the international border from the United States into Canada with goods intended for trade with other First Nations and claimed an aboriginal right exempting him from paying customs duties.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claimed aboriginal right to bring goods across the St. Lawrence River for the purposes of trade was not established.

The evidence did not demonstrate that such trade was an integral, defining feature of the pre-contact Mohawk society.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was required to pay the applicable customs duties.

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of third-party spending limits in the Canada Elections Act and obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining their enforcement during a federal election.

The Attorney General of Canada applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for a stay of the injunction.

The Court granted the stay, holding that the balance of convenience favours maintaining duly enacted legislation pending a complete constitutional review, as it must be assumed to serve a valid public purpose.