James MacPherson

The appellant, who was wrongfully convicted of murder and served eleven years in prison, sought judicial review of a ruling by a Royal Commission established to inquire into his prosecution.

The Commission ruled that while it would hear evidence on the general nature of cabinet discussions regarding the case, it would not permit questions about the views of individual cabinet members, deeming them irrelevant.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Order in Council establishing the Commission gave it the exclusive discretion to determine what 'other related matters' were relevant to its inquiry.

The Court found that the Commission reasonably exercised its jurisdiction in balancing cabinet secrecy with the administration of justice.

A provincial Royal Commission of Inquiry was established to investigate the wrongful conviction of Donald Marshall, Jr. The Commission sought to compel the attendance of the justices of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal who had heard the Reference that quashed the conviction, in order to question them about the composition of the panel and the record relied upon.

The justices successfully applied for a declaration of judicial immunity.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Commission's appeal, holding that the fundamental principle of judicial independence provides judges with absolute immunity from being compelled to testify about their adjudicative decisions and qualified immunity regarding administrative decisions such as panel composition.

The respondent lost control of his motor vehicle and collided with a tree.

A police officer demanded he provide breath samples pursuant to the Criminal Code.

The respondent complied but was never informed of his right to retain and instruct counsel.

At trial, the judge excluded the breathalyzer certificate under the Charter, finding the respondent was detained and his right to counsel was violated.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that a breathalyzer demand constitutes a detention under section 10 of the Charter.

The Court further held that the failure to inform the respondent of his right to counsel violated section 10(b), and the evidence must be excluded under section 24(2) as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.