Louise Charron

The appellant sought recognition in Quebec of an Ontario judgment certifying a national class proceeding and approving a settlement regarding a discontinued lifetime Internet service.

A parallel class action had already been authorized in Quebec.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Ontario judgment could not be recognized in Quebec.

Although the Ontario court had jurisdiction, the notice provided to Quebec class members was confusing and contravened fundamental principles of procedure.

Furthermore, the prior commencement of the Quebec proceeding created a situation of lis pendens, which also precluded recognition under the Civil Code of Québec.

The Crown appealed a Quebec Court of Appeal decision quashing a direct indictment preferred against two young persons charged with serious drug and criminal organization offences alongside adults.

The majority held that a direct indictment under s. 577 of the Criminal Code is available in youth proceedings because it is not inconsistent with the YCJA when read with ss. 67(7), 67(9), and 140.

The Court further held that, despite the availability of direct indictment, young persons and adults cannot be tried jointly because the YCJA establishes a criminal justice system for young persons that is separate from the adult system.

The appeal was allowed, but because the direct indictment issue had become moot after a preliminary inquiry was later held, no further order was made.

The appellant was convicted of extortion and appealed based on a dissent in the Court of Appeal regarding the adequacy of the trial judge's review of the evidence in the jury charge.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's succinct review of the evidence was adequate given the short duration of the trial, the limited number of witnesses, and the full review of evidence by counsel prior to the instruction.

The Court held that the jury instruction conveyed a sufficient understanding of the evidence and how it related to the issues raised by the defence.

The respondent, a citizen of India, was convicted of criminal negligence causing death after street racing.

A removal order was issued.

He appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) for special relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under s. 67(1)(c) of the IRPA.

The IAD denied relief.

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, applying patent unreasonableness.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying reasonableness simpliciter.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Minister's appeal, restoring the IAD decision.

The Court held that the Dunsmuir standard of review analysis applies to judicial review under s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, and the appropriate standard for the IAD's decision was reasonableness.

The IAD's decision fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The appellant mining company sued its insurers in the U.S. for coverage relating to environmental damage alleged to have occurred in Washington State.

The insurers commenced parallel proceedings in British Columbia seeking declarations that they were not obligated to defend or indemnify the appellant.

The appellant sought to stay the British Columbia proceedings on the basis that the U.S. District Court had already asserted jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 11 of British Columbia's Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, a foreign court's prior assertion of jurisdiction is only one factor to consider in the forum non conveniens analysis, and the chambers judge did not err in refusing the stay.

The parties separated after a 29-year marriage and negotiated a separation agreement.

The husband deliberately concealed assets and exploited the wife's known mental instability during negotiations, resulting in an equalization payment significantly lower than her statutory entitlement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that separating spouses have a duty to make full and honest disclosure of financial information.

The Court restored the trial judge's finding that the agreement was unconscionable and his order compensating the wife for the difference between the negotiated payment and her statutory entitlement.

Two Indian bands appealed dismissal of claims alleging that the Crown, as fiduciary, was obliged to invest oil and gas royalties held in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and had breached its obligations by paying interest under a long-term government bond formula.

The Court held that while the Crown owed fiduciary duties arising from the surrenders and trust-like relationship, the Indian Act, Financial Administration Act, and Indian Oil and Gas Act did not authorize the Crown to invest the royalties and instead required the funds to remain in the CRF subject to statutory payment mechanisms.

The Court further held that the chosen interest methodology was not imprudent, that the Crown was neither unjustly enriched nor unlawfully conflicted by the statutory arrangement, and that the money management provisions of the Indian Act did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The appellants filed a complaint alleging that Industry Canada failed to provide community economic development services in French of equal quality to those provided in English in the Huronia region.

The Commissioner of Official Languages found a breach of the Official Languages Act.

By the time the appellants applied for a court remedy under s. 77 of the Act, Industry Canada had taken corrective measures.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that while there was an initial breach, no remedy other than costs was appropriate because the remaining deficiencies related to program content rather than linguistic access, which fell outside Part IV of the Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the remaining issues were beyond the scope of Part IV, though it clarified that substantive equality may sometimes require services with distinct content depending on the nature of the program.

The appellant's widow's pension was terminated upon her remarriage in 1984, prior to the coming into force of the equality rights provision of the Charter.

She brought an action in 2000 seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality and personal remedies including reinstatement of her pension and damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while her claim for a declaration of invalidity could proceed, her claims for personal relief were statute-barred.

The cause of action arose on April 17, 1985, when section 15 of the Charter came into effect, and the six-year limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act applied to bar her personal claims.

The appellant sold his insurance agency and subsequently entered into a series of employment contracts with the purchaser.

The contracts contained a restrictive covenant preventing him from working in the insurance brokerage business within the 'Metropolitan City of Vancouver' for three years after leaving.

When the appellant left to work for another agency in Richmond, the respondent sued to enforce the covenant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the term 'Metropolitan City of Vancouver' was ambiguous and therefore prima facie unreasonable.

The Court ruled that notional severance cannot be applied to cure an ambiguous or unreasonable restrictive covenant in an employment contract.

Blue-pencil severance and rectification were also found inapplicable.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two accomplices who were granted immunity and witness protection.

The trial judge warned the jury to be cautious in accepting their testimony and that it would be unsafe to rely on their evidence alone, but instructed that they could rely on it if convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the trial judge's Vetrovec warning was thorough and complete, and properly alerted the jury to the dangers of accepting the accomplices' testimony without corroborating evidence.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of two unsavoury witnesses.

The trial judge gave a Vetrovec warning, instructing the jury to look for confirmation of their testimony.

The appellants appealed, arguing the warning failed to instruct the jury that confirmatory evidence must be independent and material.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that while the warning was not a model to follow, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the need for special scrutiny and the danger of convicting on unconfirmed evidence.

The Court also applied the curative proviso to an error in the trial judge's instructions on drawing inferences from proven facts.

The appeal concerned an accused’s attempt to obtain police disciplinary records and criminal investigation files relating to the Crown’s principal police witness after conviction on drug charges.

The Court held that the common law O’Connor regime is the general mechanism for production of third party records and is not confined to cases involving a proven reasonable expectation of privacy.

It further held that privacy in criminal investigation files and police disciplinary records is contextual, not categorical.

The Court clarified that the investigating police force stands on the same first party footing as the Crown for disclosure purposes and must provide records of serious police misconduct where the misconduct is related to the investigation or could reasonably affect the case against the accused.

Because the underlying application had become moot, the appeal was allowed, the order below was set aside, and no further order was made.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal that set aside his acquittal for extortion and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a brief oral judgment, dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that the trial judge drew the necessary findings from the evidence and that the substitution of a conviction for the acquittal was justified in the circumstances.

Two justices dissented and would have ordered a new trial.

The appellant taxpayers engaged in a series of transactions where a wife borrowed money to purchase shares in a family corporation from her husband, and the couple subsequently obtained a mortgage to repay the share loan.

The husband then deducted the interest on the mortgage loan and reported the taxable dividends on the shares as income, relying on the spousal attribution rules.

The Minister disallowed the deductions, arguing the transactions constituted abusive tax avoidance under the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR).

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that while the individual transactions were legally effective, the overall result of using the spousal attribution rules to reduce the husband's income tax frustrated the object, spirit, and purpose of those rules, thereby constituting abusive tax avoidance under section 245(4) of the Income Tax Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered a proposed plan of arrangement for a leveraged buyout of BCE Inc. that would add substantial debt to Bell Canada, reducing the trading value of its debentures.

The debentureholders opposed the arrangement, claiming oppression under s. 241 of the CBCA and arguing the arrangement was not fair and reasonable under s. 192.

The Court held that the directors' fiduciary duty is owed to the corporation, not to specific stakeholders, though directors may consider stakeholder interests.

The debentureholders failed to establish a reasonable expectation that their investment grade rating would be maintained.

The Court affirmed the trial judge's approval of the arrangement, finding it had a valid business purpose and resolved objections in a fair and balanced way.

The appellant appealed his convictions on 15 counts of sexual assault, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal that the circumstantial evidence had so little weight that it was unreasonable to convict the appellant of the initial assault.

As the other 14 convictions relied on similar fact evidence tied to the first conviction, the appeal was allowed and acquittals were substituted on all counts.

The appellants (CNR) insured a custom-built tunnel boring machine under an 'all risks' policy that excluded the cost of making good 'faulty or improper design'.

During construction, the machine failed due to excess differential deflection, allowing dirt to penetrate the main bearing and causing significant delay and repair costs.

The insurers denied coverage based on the design exclusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the exclusion did not apply because the design was state-of-the-art and accommodated all foreseeable risks at the time it was finalized.

The Court concluded that a design is not 'faulty or improper' simply because it fails to withstand all foreseeable risks, provided it meets the highest engineering standards of the day.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marihuana, arguing that the search warrant was invalid because the information provided by a first-time informant lacked corroboration of criminal particulars.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that corroboration of a criminal particular is not strictly required to establish the reliability of an informant's information for the issuance of a search warrant.