Iacobucci J.

Trinity Western University (TWU), a private Christian institution, applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) for permission to assume full responsibility for its teacher education program.

The BCCT denied the application, arguing it was contrary to the public interest because TWU's Community Standards, which prohibited 'homosexual behaviour', were discriminatory.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the BCCT had jurisdiction to consider discriminatory practices, its decision was unjustified.

The Court found that the BCCT failed to properly reconcile the equality rights of public school students with the freedom of religion of TWU students.

Absent concrete evidence that training teachers at TWU fosters discrimination in public schools, the freedom to hold religious beliefs must be respected.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of mandamus directing the BCCT to approve the program.

The plaintiffs contracted HIV from blood and blood products supplied by the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) between 1983 and 1985.

They alleged the CRCS was negligent in its blood donor screening procedures.

The trial judge found the CRCS breached its standard of care by using a 'good health' questionnaire rather than symptom-specific questions, but dismissed one plaintiff's action for failing to prove causation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the negligence findings and reversed the causation dismissal by applying a presumptive causal link.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CRCS's appeals, holding that while the Court of Appeal erred in applying a presumptive causal link, causation was established under the material contribution test because the CRCS's failure to implement adequate screening measures materially contributed to the plaintiffs contracting HIV.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, resisted extradition to the United States on charges of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The extradition judge had granted a stay of proceedings based on statements made by an American judge and prosecutor, which the Court of Appeal subsequently set aside.

Relying on the reasons given in the companion case of United States of America v. Cobb, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and reinstated the order staying the extradition proceedings.

The Crown appealed as of right from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which had set aside the accused's conviction for sexually assaulting the complainant and entered an acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The appellants acquired interests in a foreign partnership that had incurred substantial potential losses from a condominium project.

The original partners withdrew, and the appellants sold the condominium project back to them at fair market value, realizing a large loss which they claimed on their Canadian income tax.

The appellants also continued to profitably manage a low-rent apartment building that was an ancillary asset of the partnership.

The Minister disallowed the losses, and the lower courts upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the three essential ingredients of a valid partnership—carrying on business, in common, with a view to profit—were met, notwithstanding that the primary motivation was to acquire a tax loss.

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

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

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the prohibition on possession of child pornography infringes s. 2(b), it is largely justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to protect children from harm.

However, the Court found the law overbroad in two peripheral applications: self-created expressive material held exclusively for personal use, and private recordings of lawful sexual activity created by or depicting the accused for private use.

The Court read in exceptions for these two categories and upheld the law, allowing the Crown's appeal and remitting the matter for trial.

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.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that had allowed the accused's appeal from convictions for sexual touching and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal had found that the trial judge erred in failing to take expert testimony into account.

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge neither was mistaken about the purpose of the expert evidence nor abused his discretion in dealing with the expert's testimony.

The appeal was allowed, with three justices dissenting.

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.