Marie Deschamps

The appellant, a childcare worker, was sued in negligence after a child suffered a brain injury in her care.

During the civil proceedings, the police investigated the appellant criminally.

The appellant sought to prevent the disclosure of her civil discovery evidence to the police, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the implied undertaking rule applies to discovery evidence that may disclose criminal conduct, and that parties cannot generally disclose such evidence to the police without a court order.

The Court allowed the appeal, preventing the disclosure of the discovery transcripts to the police without a proper search warrant.

The appellants, owners of hotels, restaurants, and bars in Jasper National Park, challenged the annual business licence fees required to sell alcoholic beverages, arguing they constituted an ultra vires tax rather than a valid regulatory charge.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the fees possessed characteristics of a tax, they were in pith and substance regulatory charges connected to the regulatory scheme governing the administration and operation of the park.

The Court found a sufficient relationship between the fees paid and the regulatory scheme, as the revenues generated did not exceed the costs of operating the park, and the appellants benefited from the park's regulation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, an RCMP officer, shot and killed a detainee in a cell and was convicted of manslaughter.

The trial judge found the mandatory minimum four-year sentence under s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment and granted a constitutional exemption, imposing a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal overturned this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the four-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate on the facts.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that constitutional exemptions are not an available remedy for mandatory minimum sentences that violate s. 12 of the Charter; such laws must be struck down under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The appellant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after his vehicle crossed the centre line into oncoming traffic, killing three people.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, finding that his momentary lapse of attention did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver.

The Court of Appeal set aside the acquittals and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittals, holding that a momentary lapse of attention, without more, cannot establish the actus reus and mens rea of the offence of dangerous driving.

The respondent was sexually assaulted by a prison official while incarcerated.

After his release, he developed a heroin addiction and spent 12 of the next 15 years in prison.

He successfully sued the province for damages, including past and future wage loss.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the respondent was not entitled to compensation for wage loss during his periods of incarceration.

Applying the ex turpi causa doctrine, the Court found that awarding damages for time spent in prison would create an inconsistency between criminal and civil law, effectively providing a rebate on a lawfully imposed criminal sanction.

The appeal was allowed to exclude wage loss during incarceration, and the cross-appeal regarding the reduction of future wage loss was dismissed.

A 14-year-old uninsured driver stole a car and, while being pursued by a police officer, collided with another vehicle, killing its driver.

The trial judge found the uninsured driver 90% at fault and the police officer 10% at fault.

The Attorney General of British Columbia appealed, arguing its vicarious liability under the Police Act should be limited to the 10% fault attributed to the officer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that because the officer would have been jointly and severally liable under the Negligence Act but for the statutory immunity in the Police Act, the Attorney General steps into the officer's shoes and is jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the indivisible damages.

The appellant, a teenager, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault against a child he was babysitting.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence, finding the complainant credible before assessing the appellant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's evidence and misapplied the burden of proof by shifting the onus to the accused after accepting the complainant's evidence.

The parties entered into a joint venture agreement to purchase and develop property.

When a creditor demanded repayment of a note, only one partner was willing to pay.

That partner's company purchased the note and eventually foreclosed on the property when the other partners failed to pay their shares.

The appellants sued for breach of the joint venture agreement and return of their investment.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the agreement was not terminated and had not been breached.

The Court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the contract and the foreclosure proceedings provided a juristic reason for the deprivation.

The parties entered into a corollary relief agreement during their civil divorce, which included a commitment to appear before rabbinical authorities to obtain a Jewish religious divorce (get).

The respondent husband refused to provide the get for 15 years.

The appellant wife sued for damages for breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the agreement was a valid and binding civil obligation under Quebec law.

The Court further held that the husband could not rely on his freedom of religion to avoid paying damages, as the harm caused to the wife and the public interest in enforcing valid contracts and protecting equality rights outweighed any infringement on his religious freedom.

The trial judge's award of $47,500 in damages was restored.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after stabbing his common-law wife.

At trial, he raised the defence of extreme intoxication, claiming he had no memory of the events due to alcohol consumption.

The trial judge instructed the jury using a one-step charge focusing on actual intent rather than capacity to form intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's instructions on the defence of intoxication were adequate and that a one-step charge focusing only on actual intent should be used in all future charges on intoxication.

The appellant was arrested at a secluded marijuana plantation along with four others.

He was convicted at trial of illegal production of marijuana.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was unreasonable as it was based solely on his mere presence at the scene.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction rested on the cumulative effect of his apprehension at the scene, the rejection of his explanation, the nature of the offence, and other circumstantial evidence, rather than mere presence.

The accused was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice after a fire in a residential building he managed.

The trial judge found he attempted to falsify smoke alarm inspection records and rejected his testimony.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, reasoning his conduct could be explained by a desire to have perfect records rather than an intent to obstruct.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that an appellate court cannot acquit based on speculation about an alternative explanation that is flatly contradicted by the accused's own testimony.

Domtar purchased a recovery boiler from C.E. (now ABB and Alstom).

The boiler's superheater developed leaks and cracks due to the use of H-style tie welds.

Domtar replaced the superheater and sued C.E. for latent defects and breach of the duty to inform.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the excessive cracking constituted a latent defect.

As a manufacturer, C.E. was presumed to know of the defect and failed to rebut this presumption, rendering its limitation of liability clause inapplicable.

C.E. was held liable for the replacement costs.

The Court also dismissed the appeals regarding the insurers, finding Chubb liable on its performance bond and Arkwright not liable due to a latent defect exclusion clause.

The appellants were convicted of various offences, including murder and criminal negligence causing death, relating to the death of their infant son.

The convictions were largely based on the expert testimony of a Crown witness.

Following the dismissal of their appeals by the Court of Appeal, fresh expert evidence became available that discredited the Crown's expert.

The Supreme Court of Canada admitted the fresh evidence and ordered a new trial on all counts, finding that the unreliable expert evidence was central to the Crown's case and could have affected the jury's verdicts on both the homicide and non-homicide charges.

The appellant was arrested for second degree murder and advised of his right to counsel.

During police interviews, he repeatedly asserted his right to silence, stating he did not want to talk.

The interviewing officer persisted in questioning him, and the appellant eventually made incriminating admissions.

The trial judge admitted the statements, finding them voluntary and not obtained in breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that police persistence in questioning a detainee who has asserted the right to silence does not automatically violate section 7, provided the statements remain voluntary and the detainee is not denied the freedom to choose whether to speak.

The victim was shot by a hunter who had stopped his truck, left the engine running, and negligently fired at what he thought was a deer.

The victim sought to recover damages from the hunter's automobile insurer under s. 239(1) of the Insurance Act, arguing the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shooting was an act independent of the use or operation of the truck, breaking the chain of causation.

The insurer's appeal was allowed, and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

The respondents were catastrophically injured when two individuals dropped a large boulder from a highway overpass onto their vehicle.

The wrongdoers had used a vehicle to transport the boulders to the overpass.

The respondents sought to recover damages from their own insurer under the inadequately insured motorist coverage, arguing the injuries arose from the use or operation of the wrongdoers' vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, as the rock throwing was an intervening act severable from the use of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and coverage was denied.

The appellants brought a class action for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Ontario Securities Act.

The respondent company made an initial public offering with a prospectus containing a sales forecast.

Before the offering closed, internal analysis showed sales lagging due to unseasonably warm weather, but this was not disclosed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the company had no obligation to disclose the intra-quarterly results because they did not amount to a 'material change' under the Act.

The Court also held that the Business Judgment Rule does not apply to statutory disclosure obligations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

During an extradition hearing, the appellant disclosed in camera that he was a confidential police informer.

The extradition judge appointed an amicus curiae and subsequently ordered that media counsel and representatives be granted access to the amicus documents, subject to confidentiality undertakings, to argue whether the proceedings should remain in camera.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that informer privilege is absolute and non-discretionary, subject only to the innocence at stake exception.

The Dagenais/Mentuck test for discretionary publication bans does not apply.

The extradition judge erred in ordering the disclosure of privileged information to the media.

The appellant, an amateur youth soccer association operating exclusively in Ontario, applied to be registered as a charity under the Income Tax Act.

The Canada Revenue Agency denied the application on the basis that promoting sport is not a charitable purpose at common law.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the specific statutory provisions for national amateur athletic associations do not preclude other sports organizations from charitable status, the promotion of sport itself is not recognized as a charitable purpose under the common law.

The Court concluded that expanding the definition of charity to include amateur sports is a matter for Parliament, not the courts.