L’Heureux-Dubé

The accused was charged with importing heroin and using a false passport after being threatened by a man in Belgrade who said he would harm her mother if she did not comply.

She raised the common law defence of duress, successfully arguing that the strict immediacy and presence requirements of section 17 of the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that it is a principle of fundamental justice that only voluntary conduct should attract criminal liability.

The Court found that section 17's requirements were too restrictive, infringed section 7, and could not be justified under section 1.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, which created a new governance and funding model for Ontario school boards.

The appellants argued the legislation violated denominational education rights under s. 93(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 by removing local taxation powers and limiting financial control.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation did not prejudicially affect denominational rights, as it only regulated secular aspects of education and provided fair and equitable funding.

The Court also held that the delegation of taxation powers to the Minister of Finance was constitutional as it was express and unambiguous.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against former students.

One of the complainants brought a civil action against the accused and the school board.

The accused sought production of the complainant's civil litigation file to assess his motive to fabricate or exaggerate the incidents of abuse.

The trial judge ordered the production of the file.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege should only yield to an accused's right to make full answer and defence in rare circumstances where core issues going to guilt are involved and there is a genuine risk of wrongful conviction.

The Court established a two-stage 'innocence at stake' test, which was not met in this case.

The accused was charged with kidnapping and sexual assault of a mentally disabled woman.

At trial, the Crown did not call the complainant to testify, instead relying on expert evidence to establish her incompetence and seeking to admit her out-of-court statements under the principled approach to hearsay.

The trial judge admitted the statements and convicted the accused of kidnapping and assault causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal quashed the assault conviction and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the expert evidence was improperly admitted as testimonial competence is within the trial judge's expertise, and that necessity for admitting hearsay was not established since the complainant was available and there was no evidence that testifying would cause her trauma.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after taking the life of his severely disabled daughter.

At trial, the judge removed the defence of necessity from the jury after closing addresses and instructed the jury not to concern itself with the penalty.

Following conviction, the trial judge granted a constitutional exemption from the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 10 years.

The Court of Appeal restored the mandatory minimum sentence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence, holding that there was no air of reality to the defence of necessity, the trial was not rendered unfair by the timing of the ruling or the judge's instructions, and the mandatory minimum sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter given the gravity of the offence.

The appellant, a gay and lesbian bookstore, challenged the constitutionality of Customs legislation that authorized the interception and prohibition of obscene materials.

Customs officials had repeatedly delayed, confiscated, or prohibited materials imported by the bookstore, often misclassifying non-obscene gay and lesbian erotica as obscene.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Customs legislation infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter, it was largely justified under s. 1 as a reasonable limit to prevent the importation of harmful obscene materials.

However, the Court struck down the reverse onus provision in s. 152(3) of the Customs Act as it applied to obscenity determinations, ruling that the burden of proving obscenity must rest on the Crown.

The Court also found that while the legislation itself did not violate s. 15(1) equality rights, its systemic misapplication by Customs officials had discriminated against the gay and lesbian community.

The appellants appealed a finding that they infringed the respondents' patent for a dual action washing machine agitator with flexible vanes.

The appellants argued the patent was invalid due to double patenting, asserting that an earlier patent already covered the invention or rendered it obvious.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the patent and the finding of infringement.

In doing so, the Court established that 'purposive construction' is the proper approach to patent claims construction for both validity and infringement analyses.

The appellant school board appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal affirming a Superior Court judgment that granted the respondent union's application for judicial review of an arbitral award.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's award, which interpreted the collective agreement regarding the assignment of teaching staff, contained no patently unreasonable error.

The Court held that the arbitrator's approach was rational and based on the collective agreement and education legislation, meaning it could not be challenged before the courts.

The accused was acquitted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the admissibility of co-conspirator hearsay evidence under the Carter test.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal, confirming that the trial judge made two clear misdirections in formulating the Carter test.

The Court held that the Crown met the heavy burden of establishing with reasonable certainty that, had the jury been properly charged, the verdict would not necessarily have been the same.

The Musqueam Indian Band surrendered reserve land to the Crown for leasing.

The land was subdivided, serviced, and leased to individuals for 99 years.

The leases provided for rent reviews, stating rent should be 6 percent of the 'current land value' of 'unimproved lands'.

The parties disagreed on whether 'current land value' meant fee simple value off-reserve or leasehold value on-reserve, and whether 'unimproved' meant unserviced.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'current land value' refers to the hypothetical fee simple value of the land on the reserve, which requires a 50 percent discount from comparable off-reserve land to account for Indian reserve features.

The Court also held that 'unimproved' means unserviced, so servicing costs must be deducted from the land value.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

At trial, he challenged the constitutionality of the 'rape shield' provisions in s. 276 of the Criminal Code, which restrict the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's prior sexual activity.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provisions, finding that they do not violate the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the right to a fair trial, or the right against self-incrimination.

The Court held that the provisions properly balance the accused's rights with the need to protect the integrity of the trial process and the privacy of complainants.

The respondent, a former provincial cabinet minister, faced sexual harassment complaints before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission.

The proceedings were delayed for over 30 months.

The respondent sought a stay of proceedings, arguing the delay violated his section 7 Charter rights to liberty and security of the person due to the severe stigma and psychological stress he suffered.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Charter applies to the Commission, the respondent's section 7 rights were not engaged because the state did not interfere with his fundamental life choices or psychological integrity in a manner protected by section 7.

Furthermore, under administrative law principles, the delay did not compromise the fairness of the hearing and was not so inordinate as to amount to an abuse of process.

The appeal was allowed and the stay of proceedings was lifted.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that ordered a new trial after finding a statement made by the accused in a police van inadmissible.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred by reassessing the trial judge's weighing of the evidence on the voir dire without showing a serious, specific, and determining error.

The guilty verdicts for first degree murder and conspiracy to murder were restored.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual intercourse with a female under 14 and indecent assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in rejecting a line of evidence he sought to adduce.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the admission of the evidence was a matter within the trial judge's discretion and there was no basis to interfere with the exercise of that discretion.

The appellant, a bus driver, was sued for sexual battery, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged nonconsensual sexual activity.

He sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurance provider had a duty to defend him.

The Supreme Court of Canada, relying on its concurrent decision in Scalera, held that the insurer had no duty to defend.

The Court found that the inherently harmful nature of nonconsensual sexual activity meant any resulting injuries must be deemed intentional, thus falling under the policy's intentional act exclusion.

The Court also rejected the argument that an explicit exclusion for sexual torts in an optional day care endorsement implied coverage under the general policy.

The appellant town terminated its contract with a transportation company for the operation of its municipal transit system and commenced operating the system itself, hiring a significant number of the company's laid-off workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a 'sale of a business' had occurred under s. 64 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the town as a successor employer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the town's appeal, holding that the Board's finding of a nexus between the company and the town was not patently unreasonable given their historical and functional connection.

The British Columbia Securities Commission ordered a registered broker to produce records to assist the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in an investigation.

The broker challenged the constitutional validity of the provincial legislation authorizing the order, arguing it was ultra vires the province.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the legislation was intra vires the province under its power over property and civil rights, as its dominant purpose was the enforcement of domestic securities law through reciprocal cooperation and uncovering foreign violations by domestic registrants.

The respondent company deposited a large pile of soil on its leased property, prompting complaints from neighbours about dust and noise.

The appellant municipality passed resolutions under s. 936 of the Municipal Act declaring the soil a nuisance and ordering its removal.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the municipality had the jurisdiction to declare the soil a nuisance, interpreting the statute purposively.

The Court further held that while jurisdictional questions of municipalities are reviewed on a standard of correctness, their intra vires decisions are reviewed on a deferential standard of patent unreasonableness.

The municipality's decision was found not to be patently unreasonable.

The respondent employee suffered a back injury in the course of her employment and subsequently received substandard medical treatment from a doctor, leading to an action in negligence.

The Workers' Compensation Board issued a certificate barring the action under section 11 of the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, adopting the dissenting reasons of Donald J.A. in the court below, and restored the Board's certificate barring the action.

The appellant suffered a lung injury in a mining accident and subsequently suffered a second lung injury during biopsy surgery intended to assist in the diagnosis and treatment of the work injury.

The appellant brought an action in negligence against the doctors and the health board.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions that the action was barred by workers' compensation legislation.