Jeffrey William Beedell

The appeal addressed whether a trustee under a labour and material payment bond must disclose the bond’s existence to potential beneficiaries.

A majority held that where non-disclosure would unreasonably disadvantage a beneficiary, fiduciary duties require reasonable notice steps.

Because the contractor did nothing to alert subcontractors in circumstances where such bonds were uncommon, it breached trust obligations, and the case was remitted for damages quantification.

The appellant challenged Law Society rules making continuing professional development mandatory and authorizing administrative suspension for non-compliance without an express hearing or appeal process.

The majority held law society rules are reviewed for reasonableness and are valid if consistent with the enabling statute’s purpose, wording, and scheme.

It concluded the Law Society’s broad public-interest mandate and rule-making powers authorized mandatory education standards enforced by temporary suspension.

The majority further held the absence of codified hearing and appeal rights in the rules did not render them unreasonable in this declaratory challenge.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent finding automatic suspension manifestly unjust.

In this criminal appeal, the Court considered challenges to the trial judge’s use of alibi and prior-vandalism evidence in upholding convictions for arson and mischief.

A majority dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of Willcock J.A. and declined to re-examine the governing jurisprudence in the circumstances.

The majority upheld the convictions, while one judge would have allowed the appeal based on the dissenting appellate reasons.

The appellant challenged a provincial appellate ruling that reversed leave to appeal an arbitral award under s. 31 of the Arbitration Act.

The dispute concerned whether an option to renew was validly exercised by letter under a commercial agreement.

The appellate court held no pure question of law arose from the arbitrator’s interpretation, so the statutory leave threshold was not met.

The Court dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.

The appellant union disputed an arbitrator's award regarding the calculation of vacation benefits for casual employees who became permanent.

The arbitrator concluded that time as a casual employee was not to be included.

On judicial review, the chambers judge found the arbitrator's reasons insufficient and unreasonable, but the Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, clarifying that under the Dunsmuir reasonableness standard, the adequacy of reasons is not a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision nor a question of procedural fairness.

Instead, reasons must be read together with the outcome to determine if the result falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision granting a constitutional exemption to Insite, a safe injection facility in Vancouver, from federal drug possession and trafficking laws.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is valid federal criminal legislation that applies to provincial health facilities, the federal Minister of Health's refusal to grant an exemption under section 56 of the Act violated the claimants' section 7 Charter rights.

The Court found the Minister's decision was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate in its effects, as it denied life-saving medical care to vulnerable individuals without a corresponding benefit to public safety.

The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption forthwith.

The accused was convicted of possession of child pornography after police searched his computer pursuant to a warrant.

The warrant was obtained based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) sworn by a police officer after a computer technician reported seeing suspicious bookmarks and a webcam pointed at a child's play area.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the ITO, which contained misleading and incomplete information, failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused possessed child pornography.

The Court distinguished between the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography, holding that possession requires control over the underlying data files, not merely viewing images online.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and an acquittal was entered.

The Attorney General for Saskatchewan brought a motion seeking an order directing the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority Inc. to serve it with an application for leave to appeal.

The Court held that under the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Questions Act, the Attorney General is considered a party and must be served.

The motion was granted with costs.