Karen A. Horsman

The Court considered the scope of appellate review of a commercial arbitration award under British Columbia's Arbitration Act in a forestry compensation dispute.

A majority held that courts had jurisdiction only over the legal component of statutory interpretation, not contractual interpretation or statutory application issues characterized as mixed questions, and that reasonableness was the applicable standard.

Applying that framework, the majority found the arbitrator's chosen valuation approach reasonable and restored key parts of the arbitral award.

The appeal was allowed in part with costs throughout.

The appellant challenged a provincial election-law registration requirement as an unjustified limit on freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter when applied to sponsors spending less than $500 on election advertising.

The Court held that the statutory definition of sponsor captures persons or organizations receiving advertising services from others, not individuals engaging in solitary political self-expression such as homemade signs, bumper stickers, or T-shirts.

On that interpretation, the impugned limit was narrow and justified under s. 1 given the objective of electoral transparency, accountability, and an informed electorate.

The registration scheme was rationally connected, minimally impairing, and proportionate in effects.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a constitutional labour appeal, the appellant challenged provincial legislation that nullified certain collective agreement terms and barred similar terms from being renegotiated until a specified date.

The central issue was whether the legislative scheme violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter and whether any infringement was justified under s. 1.

The appellate court below had upheld the legislation on the basis of meaningful pre-legislative consultation and good faith dealings.

The Court allowed the appeal, substantially adopting the dissenting appellate reasons that found unconstitutional interference with collective bargaining protections.

The appeal addresses the governing legal test and its application to the record before the appellate court.

The Court clarifies the proper analytical framework, applies it to the disputed issues, and resolves the appeal accordingly.

The reasons emphasize principled interpretation and consistency with established jurisprudence.

The disposition determines the parties' rights on the issues raised in the appeal.

The respondent was sexually assaulted by a prison official while incarcerated.

After his release, he developed a heroin addiction and spent 12 of the next 15 years in prison.

He successfully sued the province for damages, including past and future wage loss.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the respondent was not entitled to compensation for wage loss during his periods of incarceration.

Applying the ex turpi causa doctrine, the Court found that awarding damages for time spent in prison would create an inconsistency between criminal and civil law, effectively providing a rebate on a lawfully imposed criminal sanction.

The appeal was allowed to exclude wage loss during incarceration, and the cross-appeal regarding the reduction of future wage loss was dismissed.

A forest fire caused by the negligence of Canadian Forest Products Ltd. damaged public lands in British Columbia.

The Province sued for suppression and restoration costs, which were agreed upon, as well as for lost stumpage revenue from harvestable trees and the value of non-harvestable trees in environmentally sensitive areas, including an environmental premium.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Province failed to prove a compensable financial loss for the harvestable trees because the Province's own Comparative Value Pricing system ensured revenue neutrality.

The Court also rejected the claim for the non-harvestable trees and the environmental premium, finding that the Crown had pleaded its case as an ordinary landowner rather than as parens patriae, and had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to quantify the environmental loss.

The respondent was sexually assaulted by her foster father while in the care of the provincial government.

She sued the Crown for vicarious liability and breach of non-delegable duty.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its companion decision in K.L.B. v. British Columbia, held that the Crown was not vicariously liable for the torts of foster parents and did not owe a non-delegable duty to ensure no harm came to foster children.

The Court also held that social assistance benefits received by the respondent must be deducted from her damage award for past loss of earning capacity to avoid double recovery, and that prejudgment interest on such an award should be calculated incrementally.

The appellant, an investor who lost money when a registered mortgage broker used funds for unauthorized purposes, brought a class action against the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers for negligence.

The appellant alleged the Registrar should have acted sooner to suspend the broker's licence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Registrar did not owe a private law duty of care to the investors.

Applying the Anns test, the Court found insufficient proximity between the Registrar and the investors, as the governing statute imposed a duty to the public as a whole, not to individual investors.

Furthermore, policy considerations, including the spectre of indeterminate liability and the quasi-judicial nature of the Registrar's decisions, negated any prima facie duty of care.