John Stewart Tyhurst

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, moved to strike the plaintiffs' action as an abuse of process and res judicata.

The court found the action was substantially similar to two prior dismissed proceedings and was primarily intended to delay regulatory hunting and fishing prosecutions against the individual plaintiffs.

The court determined that constitutional issues related to the prosecutions should be raised in the Ontario Court of Justice, and other land claims could be pursued in a separate, ongoing action (17-71837).

The motion to strike was granted.

The Court allowed the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal and set aside the divestiture order under s. 92 of the Competition Act.

A majority held the merger likely prevented competition substantially, but concluded the efficiencies defence in s. 96 succeeded because proven efficiency gains outweighed proven anti-competitive effects after the Commissioner failed to quantify quantifiable effects.

The Pikangikum First Nation appealed the dismissal of its claim for misfeasance in public office against the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The First Nation alleged the Minister unlawfully withheld infrastructure funding to force the withdrawal of an application for judicial review regarding the imposition of third-party management.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the Minister's actions were not motivated by an improper purpose or vindictive desire to harm, but were a reasonable response to the ongoing dispute and the need to ensure proper management of public funds.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The Government of British Columbia and a class of consumers brought separate actions against tobacco companies regarding the health impacts of smoking and 'light' cigarettes.

The tobacco companies issued third-party notices against the Government of Canada, claiming contribution and indemnity based on negligent misrepresentation, negligent design, failure to warn, and statutory liability.

Canada brought motions to strike the third-party claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Canada's appeals and struck all third-party claims.

The Court held that Canada's alleged representations and design decisions regarding low-tar cigarettes were core government policy decisions immune from tort liability.

Furthermore, Canada did not qualify as a 'manufacturer' or 'supplier' under the relevant provincial statutes.

The plaintiffs, Ontario, and Canada sought leave to appeal an interim preservation order that maintained the Town of Fort Frances' possession of a park pending trial.

The moving parties argued that injunctive relief, including preservation orders, is statutorily prohibited against the Crown.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's reliance on Supreme Court of Canada precedent, which allows courts to maintain the status quo to ensure the effectiveness of their final disposition.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an application to determine which Indian Bands were the beneficial owners of the Agency One Reserve, created in 1875 pursuant to Treaty 3.

The applications judge found that the reserve was set apart solely for the use and benefit of the Rainy Lake Bands, based on historical evidence including a 1908 surrender of land.

The Rainy River Bands appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's decision on entitlement, finding it supported by the evidence.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and cross-appeal regarding costs, ordering the Crown to pay the bands' costs of the application on a substantial-indemnity basis due to its fiduciary role and its responsibility for the historical uncertainty.

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to prevent or lessen competition unduly, contrary to s. 32(1)(c) of the Combines Investigation Act.

They moved to quash the indictment, arguing that the provision violated s. 7 of the Charter due to vagueness and an unconstitutional mens rea requirement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the word 'unduly' is not unconstitutionally vague, as it provides a sufficient basis for legal debate and fair notice.

The Court also held that the mens rea requirement of the offence, which requires subjective intent to enter the agreement and objective fault regarding the undue lessening of competition, satisfies the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7.

Bell Canada appealed a taxation order confirming costs awarded by the CRTC to public interest interveners in a rate hearing.

Bell argued that because the interveners received government funding or were represented by retained counsel, they did not actually incur expenses, and thus the award violated the principle of indemnification.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the word 'costs' carries a general connotation of indemnification, the CRTC is not bound by the strict rules applicable in courts and may take a broad view to encourage informed public participation.