Graham R. Garton

The Minister of National Revenue assessed the respondent taxpayers under s. 160 of the Income Tax Act for taxes owing by a company from which they had received payments.

The taxpayers applied for judicial review of the Minister's discretionary decision to assess them, arguing that the long delay before the assessment was abusive.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that judicial review was not available because s. 160 expressly allows the Minister to assess 'at any time', meaning there is no limitation period.

Furthermore, the taxpayers could have pursued the regular tax appeal process to challenge the assessments.

The representative plaintiff, a disabled veteran, sued the federal Crown for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to pay interest on pension funds administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Parliament enacted legislation barring claims for interest prior to 1990.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the expropriative legislation was valid and not inconsistent with the due process or fair hearing protections of the Canadian Bill of Rights, as Parliament has the power to expropriate property without compensation using clear and unambiguous language.

The taxpayer failed to pay federal and provincial taxes for the 1980 to 1985 taxation years.

Revenue Canada assessed the taxpayer in 1986 but took no collection action until 1998.

The Crown appealed a decision holding that it was statute-barred from collecting the tax debts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the six-year limitation period prescribed by section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act applies to the statutory collection procedures under the Income Tax Act.

The Court also held that the provincial tax debt was barred by the six-year limitation period under the British Columbia Limitation Act.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals for careless storage of a firearm and storing a firearm contrary to regulations.

The trial judge found the accused had temporarily hidden loaded handguns in a panicked state.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that this temporary hiding constituted 'storage' within the meaning of s. 86(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were entered, and the matter was remitted for sentencing.

The appellants, foreign nationals living in Canada, challenged s. 16(4)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act, which gives preference to Canadian citizens in open competitions for federal public service employment.

They argued this preference violated their equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that while the provision infringes s. 15(1) by discriminating on the analogous ground of citizenship, it is saved under s. 1 as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Court found the objectives of enhancing the meaning of citizenship and encouraging naturalization to be pressing and substantial, and the preference to be rationally connected and minimally impairing.

The Province of Alberta challenged the constitutionality of the federal Firearms Act, which required the licensing and registration of all firearms, including ordinary rifles and shotguns.

Alberta argued the law fell under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the legislation as a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power.

The Court found the pith and substance of the law was directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms through prohibitions and penalties, and its effects on provincial jurisdiction were merely incidental.