J. Sanderson Graham

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault involving minors.

The offences occurred over an extended period and involved multiple victims who were under the offender's authority as a coach and mentor.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 10 months for one count, 8 months as a conditional sentence for another count, and 5 months for the third count, all to be served consecutively.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the breach of trust, grooming behaviour, and vulnerability of the victims.

The offender was also subject to DNA sampling, sex offender registration for 20 years, a 2-year probation order with conditions including sex offender counselling, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to strike or stay an amended statement of claim.

The underlying action alleged that government representations induced the plaintiffs to invest in a telecommunications company and that subsequent government conduct destroyed the value of the investment, causing significant losses.

The moving party argued the claim was derivative in nature and that several pleaded causes of action disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the stringent test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b) was not met because there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision.

Although the pleadings raised novel and important legal issues, they were not plainly and obviously doomed to fail and should proceed on a full evidentiary record.

RCMP members challenged federal wage restraint measures, arguing that rollback of agreed wage increases without prior consultation violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The majority held the Expenditure Restraint Act did not substantially interfere with the existing consultation process and dismissed the appeal, while a dissent found unconstitutional unilateral interference.

The appellant challenged Canada's assent to changes to the royal succession rules, arguing that the continued exclusion of Roman Catholics from the throne violated s. 15 of the Charter and seeking declaratory relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the application, holding that the succession rules form part of the constitution of Canada and cannot be amended or overridden by the Charter.

The court further held that the appellant lacked both private standing and public interest standing, and rejected the argument that standing had been admitted through a failure to respond to a notice to admit.

The appeal, including the appeal on costs, was dismissed, with appeal costs fixed at $10,000 all inclusive.

After dismissal of a constitutional application for lack of standing and non‑justiciability, the respondent sought costs of the proceeding.

The court considered the absence of Rule 49 offers and the respondent’s partial indemnity entitlement as the successful party.

The respondent incurred over $38,000 in legal costs and disbursements but sought recovery of $10,000.

The court found the request reasonable given the constitutional issues raised and the applicant’s litigation conduct, including voluminous irrelevant materials and late filings.

Costs of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded against the applicant.

The applicant sought declarations that the Canada Act 1982 prevents Canada from consenting to United Kingdom legislation altering the rules of succession to the Crown and that provisions barring Catholics or those married to Catholics from ascending to the Crown are of no force or effect.

The court addressed preliminary issues of justiciability and standing.

Relying on prior authority, the court held that the rules of royal succession form part of the constitutional structure of Canada as a constitutional monarchy and are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

The court further held that the applicant lacked standing because he had no personal stake and raised only a hypothetical concern.

The application was therefore dismissed.

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.