Sean Hern

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.

Consumer appeal concerning the enforceability of a mandatory mediation-arbitration clause and class action waiver in a mobile phone services contract.

The Court held that the competence-competence principle generally requires arbitral jurisdictional challenges to be decided first by the arbitrator, but the statutory interpretation issue raised a pure question of law that the court could decide.

Interpreting ss. 3 and 172 of British Columbia's consumer protection legislation textually, contextually and purposively, the majority held that claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under s. 172 were non-waivable and could proceed in Supreme Court notwithstanding the arbitration clause.

Other statutory, repealed statutory, and common law claims remained subject to a stay in favour of arbitration, and the class action waiver fell with the invalid portion of the arbitration clause.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent for telemarketing fraud.

In support of the committal application, the requesting state submitted a record of the case containing a summary of evidence gathered in both the US and Canada.

The respondent objected to the Canadian-gathered evidence as inadmissible hearsay under s. 32(2) of the Extradition Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that ss. 32(2) and 33(1) provide a modified approach to the hearsay rule in the extradition context, allowing Canadian-gathered evidence to be presented in summary form provided its contents would otherwise be admissible under Canadian law.

The appeal was allowed and the committal and surrender orders were restored.