Louise Charron

Consumer-protection appeal concerning misleading sweepstakes advertising and civil remedies under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.

The Court held the proper benchmark for general impression is the credulous and inexperienced average consumer, not a skeptical or especially curious consumer.

The mailing was found misleading and to omit material information, establishing prohibited practices under ss. 219 and 228 and engaging civil recourses under s. 272 where a sufficient nexus to the consumer contract was proven.

Compensatory damages of $1,000 were upheld, punitive damages were justified but reduced to $15,000, and the appeal was allowed in part.

Parents challenged a school board refusal to exempt their children from Quebec's mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture course, alleging violations of religious freedom and improper external influence.

The Court held that sincere belief alone is insufficient, and objective proof of interference is required.

On this record, the parents failed to prove the program infringed freedom of religion, and the refusal to exempt was upheld.

The Court held that under s. 16(3) of the Canada Evidence Act, an adult witness with mental disabilities is competent if they can communicate evidence and promise to tell the truth.

Requiring abstract understanding of truth-telling obligations was rejected.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant sought to block disclosure of portions of drug submission records requested under federal access to information legislation.

The Court clarified notice obligations, severance duties, and the evidentiary burden on a third party resisting disclosure under statutory exemptions for trade secrets, confidential information, and probable harm.

The majority held that the third party had not proven that the remaining redacted material met the claimed exemptions on the record.

The Court affirmed that appellate intervention was available where the reviewing judge did not adequately apply governing legal principles to the evidence.

The appeals were dismissed and disclosure orders stood, subject to redactions already accepted.

The Governor in Council referred the proposed federal Securities Act to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine its constitutional validity.

The proposed Act sought to create a single national securities regulator and a comprehensive federal regime for securities regulation.

The federal government argued the Act was a valid exercise of its general trade and commerce power under s. 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court applied the General Motors test and concluded that while certain aspects of the securities market are national in scope, the main thrust of the Act was the day-to-day regulation of securities, which falls under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights (s. 92(13)).

Consequently, the Court found the proposed Act unconstitutional, though it noted that a cooperative federal-provincial approach remains available.

The appellant taxpayer engaged in a series of transactions, including a horizontal amalgamation of sister corporations, to preserve the paid-up capital of a subsidiary's shares that would have been cancelled in a vertical amalgamation.

The amalgamated corporation subsequently redeemed shares and paid out the preserved paid-up capital to its non-resident shareholder as a tax-free return of capital.

The Minister assessed the taxpayer for withholding tax, applying the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) to reduce the paid-up capital and deem a portion of the redemption a taxable dividend.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the transactions constituted an abusive avoidance transaction that circumvented the purpose of section 87(3) of the Income Tax Act.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner received complaints that the respondent disclosed private information in contravention of the Personal Information Protection Act.

The Commissioner took 22 months to extend the 90-day statutory time limit for completing the inquiry.

An adjudicator subsequently found the respondent had contravened the Act.

On judicial review, the respondent argued for the first time that the Commissioner lost jurisdiction by failing to extend the time limit within the initial 90 days.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the adjudicator implicitly decided the timelines issue, and this decision was reviewable on a standard of reasonableness because the tribunal was interpreting its home statute.

The Court found the adjudicator's implied decision to be reasonable and restored the order.

The appellant appealed a decision declaring s. 144 of the Act respecting industrial accidents and occupational diseases inoperative in relation to a requirement to pay issued under s. 126(4) of the Employment Insurance Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding a conflict of legislative purposes between the federal provision, which aims to recover overpayments summarily without regard to provincial exemptions, and the provincial provision exempting income replacement benefits from seizure.

The provincial provision was held to be constitutionally inoperative under the doctrine of federal paramountcy.

The appellant brutally assaulted two individuals while in a state of toxic psychosis caused by voluntary drug consumption.

He was convicted of aggravated assault at trial, as the judge applied s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which precludes self-induced intoxication as a defence for violent offences.

The appellant appealed, arguing he should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under s. 16.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a toxic psychosis resulting exclusively from self-induced intoxication is not a 'mental disorder' under s. 16, but rather falls under the self-induced intoxication provisions of s. 33.1.

The Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band claimed an Aboriginal right to the commercial harvesting and sale of all species of fish within their traditional waters, arguing this right evolved from their pre-contact practices.

The trial judge found that while the pre-contact society relied heavily on fishing for sustenance, their only significant trade was in eulachon grease, and trade in other fish was not integral to their distinctive culture.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that a modern commercial fishery in all species lacked sufficient continuity and proportionality with the pre-contact trade in eulachon grease.

The Court also affirmed that Aboriginal rights claims must be characterized based on the pleadings, rejecting a 'commission of inquiry' approach to determining pre-contact practices.

The respondents were convicted of second degree murder after shooting the victim, who died a month later from a blood clot.

The victim had ingested cocaine shortly before death, raising a causation issue.

The trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the included offence of attempted murder.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that this was an error of law and declined to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, as the error could not be confidently dismissed as harmless.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed, upholding the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial.

The appellant filed a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment by the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal substantiated the complaint in part and awarded compensation, including $47,000 for legal costs under the statutory provision allowing compensation for 'any expenses incurred'.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the costs award.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Tribunal's decision should be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness, its interpretation of the statute to include legal costs was unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal does not have the authority to award legal costs.

The complainant workers suffered from chronic pain and received a fixed compensation award from the Workers' Compensation Board.

They appealed to the Board's Review Division, arguing the policy was discriminatory under the Human Rights Code.

The Review Officer concluded the policy was not discriminatory.

Instead of seeking judicial review, the complainants filed new complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the complaints under s. 27(1)(f) of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Tribunal's decision was patently unreasonable because it ignored the principles of finality and the rule against collateral attack, effectively allowing the relitigation of an issue already decided by a decision-maker with concurrent jurisdiction.

The appellant, a private investigator hired by the defence, attempted to discover the identity of a confidential police informant.

He was charged with obstruction of justice and extortion.

The trial judge acquitted him on all counts.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial on all counts.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the defence is not bound by informer privilege and may independently investigate an informant's identity, such investigation must be lawful.

The Court ordered a new trial on the obstruction of justice and the first extortion count (against the police officer) due to errors of law by the trial judge, but restored the acquittal on the second extortion count (against the associates) as it was based on factual findings.

The appellant was charged with possessing child pornography between 1999 and 2006.

He claimed he collected the materials to create an artistic exhibition about child exploitation.

The trial judge acquitted him based on the pre-2005 artistic merit defence and the post-2005 legitimate purpose defence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred in law by applying the artistic merit defence to materials lacking artistic merit, and by using a purely subjective test for 'legitimate purpose'.

However, the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by making its own factual findings to substitute a conviction instead of ordering a new trial.

The appellants sued the respondent for defamation after the respondent posted an article on his website containing hyperlinks to other websites with allegedly defamatory information about the appellants.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a hyperlink, by itself, is content-neutral and merely refers to other content without repeating it.

Therefore, creating a hyperlink does not constitute publication of the defamatory material to which it links.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was charged with second degree murder after her spouse was found with a gunshot wound to the head.

The trial judge found that the police had systematically violated the appellant's Charter rights, including conducting warrantless searches of her home, detaining her without advising her of the reasons or her right to counsel, and violating her right to silence.

The trial judge excluded all evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, finding that the physical evidence should not have been excluded because it was discoverable and the police had not deliberately acted abusively.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view of the police conduct for the trial judge's and in placing undue weight on the discoverability of the evidence.

The accused was acquitted at trial of two counts of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in law by taking a piecemeal approach to the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that the trial judge did not fail to consider the evidence as a whole.

The Court clarified that a trial judge's assessment of evidence only constitutes an error of law allowing a Crown appeal from an acquittal in limited circumstances, such as when a reasonable doubt is tainted by a legal error.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision granting a constitutional exemption to Insite, a safe injection facility in Vancouver, from federal drug possession and trafficking laws.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is valid federal criminal legislation that applies to provincial health facilities, the federal Minister of Health's refusal to grant an exemption under section 56 of the Act violated the claimants' section 7 Charter rights.

The Court found the Minister's decision was arbitrary and grossly disproportionate in its effects, as it denied life-saving medical care to vulnerable individuals without a corresponding benefit to public safety.

The Court ordered the Minister to grant the exemption forthwith.

The Crown appealed from a sentencing decision declining to impose a $4.7 million fine on an offender convicted of customs fraud involving the same amount.

The Supreme Court held that under s. 734(2) of the Criminal Code, a fine may be imposed only where the court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the offender is able to pay it.

Past receipt of illegally obtained funds may support an inference of present ability to pay, but it does not shift a formal evidentiary or persuasive burden to the offender, nor does it compel the sentencing judge to draw that inference.

On the record, the sentencing judge made no reviewable error in concluding she was not satisfied that the offender could pay the fine.