Joanne Lysyk

The appellant sought to set aside a municipal taxation bylaw as unreasonable, arguing that tax burdens should track objective service-consumption factors.

The respondent municipality argued that reasonableness in bylaw review requires consideration of broader social, economic, and demographic factors affecting the community.

The Court held that substantive review of municipal bylaws is governed by reasonableness and is highly deferential in light of delegated legislative authority.

A bylaw is invalid only where no reasonable municipal body, informed by relevant contextual factors and statutory limits, could have enacted it.

The appeal was dismissed because the bylaw fell within a reasonable range of outcomes and was adopted through a proper process.

Two Indian bands appealed dismissal of claims alleging that the Crown, as fiduciary, was obliged to invest oil and gas royalties held in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and had breached its obligations by paying interest under a long-term government bond formula.

The Court held that while the Crown owed fiduciary duties arising from the surrenders and trust-like relationship, the Indian Act, Financial Administration Act, and Indian Oil and Gas Act did not authorize the Crown to invest the royalties and instead required the funds to remain in the CRF subject to statutory payment mechanisms.

The Court further held that the chosen interest methodology was not imprudent, that the Crown was neither unjustly enriched nor unlawfully conflicted by the statutory arrangement, and that the money management provisions of the Indian Act did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The respondents, members of a pension plan, sought to terminate the pension trust and distribute its $11 million surplus among themselves using the common law rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The employer, Rogers Communications Inc., had previously closed the plan, taken contribution holidays, and merged it with other plans.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier does not apply to employment pension trusts, which are heavily regulated by the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 (PBSA).

The Court found that the PBSA provides a comprehensive scheme for plan termination and that the members must seek recourse through the Superintendent of Financial Institutions rather than relying on the common law rule to bypass the statutory framework.

Appeal in a major Aboriginal title claim involving hereditary chiefs asserting rights over a large area of British Columbia.

The Court held that Aboriginal title is a sui generis right in land protected by s. 35(1), conferring exclusive use and occupation for a variety of purposes subject to an inherent limit against uses irreconcilable with the group’s attachment to the land.

The Court also held that oral histories must be given due weight in Aboriginal litigation and that the trial judge erred in his treatment of such evidence, requiring a new trial.

On the cross-appeal, the Court held that the province lacked constitutional authority after 1871 to extinguish Aboriginal rights, either directly or through s. 88 of the Indian Act.

The appellant challenged convictions arising from historical abuse allegations at an orphanage, arguing abuse of process and unreasonable verdicts.

The Court upheld the rejection of the abuse of process claim and maintained the conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

However, applying the unreasonable verdict standard under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, the Court held that the indecent assault convictions could not reasonably be supported given blatant falsehoods, material inconsistencies, possible collusion between complainants, and unreliable photographic identification.

The indecent assault convictions were quashed.

The appellant contractor successfully bid on a road building contract and entered into a contract with the province.

The contractor alleged it lost money due to errors in the specifications and construction drawings prepared by the respondent engineering firm.

The contractor sued the engineering firm and the individual engineers for negligent misrepresentation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the engineering firm owed a duty of care to the contractor, as the firm knew contractors would rely on its tender documents.

The contract between the contractor and the province did not negate this duty.

However, the Court dismissed the claim against the individual engineers, finding that merely affixing a professional seal to the documents was insufficient to establish a duty of care.

The appellant was charged with historical sexual offences against his stepdaughter and daughters, with the charges laid up to 30 years after the alleged events.

The trial judge granted a stay of proceedings under the Charter, finding the pre-charge delay violated the appellant's rights to fundamental justice and a fair trial, and rejecting the complainants' explanation for the delay without hearing viva voce evidence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that pre-charge delay alone does not automatically undermine trial fairness and that the trial judge erred in making credibility findings without a proper evidentiary basis.

The appellant, a member of the Musqueam Indian Band, was charged under the Fisheries Act with fishing with a drift net longer than permitted by the Band's Indian food fishing licence.

He defended the charge on the basis that he was exercising an existing aboriginal right to fish and that the net length restriction was inconsistent with s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Supreme Court of Canada established a framework for analyzing s. 35(1) claims, holding that an aboriginal right is not extinguished by mere regulation and that any government regulation infringing upon an aboriginal right must be justified.

The Court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, ordering a new trial to determine whether the net length restriction constituted a prima facie infringement and, if so, whether it was justified.