Marie Deschamps

The Court allowed the Crown appeal and restored a second degree murder conviction, holding the provocation defence lacked an air of reality on this record and that jury charge errors were either minor or cured by overwhelming evidence under the curative proviso.

On an appeal from Quebec, the Court addressed whether a fatal injury suffered when a tree fell onto a vehicle was damage caused by an automobile under the provincial no-fault automobile insurance statute.

The Court reaffirmed a broad, remedial interpretation of the statute and held that a traditional fault-based causation analysis does not govern this scheme.

It concluded that use of a vehicle as a means of transportation is sufficient at minimum to engage the statutory definition of accident, even where the vehicle’s role is not active.

Because the claim fell within the statutory scheme, the civil action in damages was barred and compensation had to be sought through the public insurer.

The appellate judgment was set aside and the dismissal of the action was restored.

The appellant municipality challenged the federal minister's valuation of lands at a national historic site for payments in lieu of municipal property taxes.

The Court held that, while the minister may form an independent opinion of property value, that opinion must reflect how an assessment authority would value the property under the applicable tax system and must remain consistent with the governing statute's fairness objectives.

The Court found the nominal valuation approach unreasonable because it lacked evidentiary grounding in assessment practice and effectively undermined the statutory scheme's inclusion of historic sites.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for redetermination by the minister, with any new advisory panel required to be differently constituted.

The appellant challenged a criminal charge under s. 127(1) for allegedly disobeying an injunction, arguing Ontario civil contempt rules provided an express alternative mode of proceeding.

The majority held the statutory exception applies only where legislation provides the legal foundation for contempt, defines contempt circumstances, and provides punishment or procedure.

The Court found Rules 60.11 and 60.12 are procedurally detailed but remain dependent on common law substratum for legal foundation and contempt definition.

Accordingly, the exception was not triggered and prosecution under s. 127(1) could proceed.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding the rules themselves constituted an express legislative mode of proceeding.

A four-year-old child suffered catastrophic injuries after running into the path of an empty school bus.

A jury found no negligence by the driver, but the provincial appellate court ordered a new trial based on concerns that jury instructions on right-of-way rules improperly suggested fault by the child.

The Court held the instructions were legally proper when read as a whole and were directed to the driver's standard of care, not the child's liability.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the original trial judgment was restored.

On a criminal appeal from a conviction for dangerous driving causing death, the Court addressed the fault element required beyond proof of objectively dangerous driving.

The Court held that actus reus alone cannot ground an inference of the marked-departure mens rea and that triers must conduct a meaningful inquiry into whether a reasonable person would have foreseen and avoided the risk.

It found legal error where the trial reasons effectively inferred marked departure from dangerous driving and from the absence of an exculpatory explanation.

The Court further held the appellate proviso was unavailable because the evidentiary record did not make conviction inevitable.

The conviction was set aside and an acquittal entered.

This appeal asked whether a Quebec heavy-equipment company’s labour relations were federally regulated because some employees performed stevedoring work tied to shipping.

The Court held that labour relations are presumptively provincial and that derivative federal jurisdiction applies only where federally related work is dominant or performed by a functionally discrete unit integral to a federal undertaking.

Tessier’s stevedoring represented a minor share of revenue and employee time, and its workforce was integrated across local and shipping tasks.

The Court concluded the undertaking’s essential operational nature remained local and provincial occupational health and safety legislation governed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In a criminal appeal on unreasonable verdict review, the appellant challenged an appellate acquittal entered after a trial conviction for indecent assault based largely on testimonial evidence from events decades earlier.

The Court held that appellate intervention is limited to verdicts no reasonable trier could render or findings incompatible with uncontradicted evidence, and that credibility findings are owed deference unless unsustainable on any reasonable view of the record.

The majority concluded the trial judge’s credibility assessment and reconciliation of conflicting testimony were reasonably open on the evidence.

The appellate court was found to have impermissibly substituted its own assessment.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored, with dissent.

The appellant challenged a conviction for sexual assault, arguing error in admitting a prior sexual-assault conviction as similar fact evidence on identity and in restricting a voir dire challenge to that prior verdict.

The Court held that a prior conviction can constitute reliable 'some evidence' linking an accused to similar act conduct when identity is put in issue.

It further held that while challenges to prior convictions are not categorically barred at the voir dire stage, they may be limited where there is no reasonable likelihood of affecting admissibility.

The Court found no reversible error in the trial judge's admissibility ruling or ultimate identity finding on the trial record.

On an appeal concerning GST treatment of municipal transit capital expenditures, the Court addressed whether the municipality made one exempt supply or separate exempt and taxable supplies under the Excise Tax Act.

The municipality argued that acquiring and constructing transit facilities constituted a distinct taxable supply to the province, supporting entitlement to input tax credits.

The Court held that the alleged facilities service was preparatory and integral to the single exempt supply of municipal transit services to the public, and that provincial funding and accountability terms did not create a separate supply of goods, services, or benefit to the province.

The statutory framework and funding agreements were characterized as cost-sharing and administration mechanisms rather than consideration for a distinct taxable supply.

The appeal was dismissed and input tax credits were denied beyond the statutory rebate scheme for exempt-supply activities.

In two tort actions arising from serious injuries and death at resort properties in Cuba, the corporate defendant challenged Ontario jurisdiction and sought stays based on forum non conveniens.

The Court clarified the real and substantial connection framework by reaffirming presumptive connecting factors, including carrying on business in the province and making a contract in the province connected to the dispute.

It held that jurisdiction was properly assumed in both proceedings and that the defendant failed to rebut the presumptions.

The Court also held the defendant did not establish that the foreign forum was clearly more appropriate.

Both appeals were dismissed with costs, except as to two respondents in one file.

In an appeal from Ontario, the appellants sought a stay of a defamation action on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The Court held that Ontario had a real and substantial connection because the alleged tort was published in Ontario and the plaintiff pleaded publication and reputational harm in that forum.

The Court also held that the appellants failed to show Quebec was clearly more appropriate, giving deference to the motion judge’s discretionary forum analysis.

The Court discussed concerns about forum shopping and noted, without deciding, that choice-of-law rules in multijurisdictional defamation may warrant future refinement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In six Ontario libel actions tied to statements posted by a U.S. company and later republished in Ontario newspapers, the appellants argued Ontario lacked jurisdiction or should defer to Illinois.

The Court held that defamation was presumptively connected to Ontario because publication occurred there through reading, downloading, and republication.

It concluded the appellants did not rebut jurisdiction and did not prove Illinois was clearly the more appropriate forum under forum non conveniens.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant Crown challenged a declaration that the emergency wiretap power in s. 184.4 of the Criminal Code violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Court held that warrantless interception in exigent circumstances can be constitutionally permissible where strict urgency conditions are met.

However, the provision lacked an adequate accountability mechanism, particularly after-the-fact notice to affected persons, and therefore failed constitutional minimum standards.

The infringement was not justified under section 1 because a notice requirement would not impair emergency police action while materially protecting privacy rights.

The appeal was dismissed and invalidity was suspended for 12 months to permit legislative revision.

The appellants sought return of withholding amounts remitted on capital gains from share dispositions, arguing the trusts were resident in Barbados under the Canada-Barbados treaty.

The respondent maintained the trusts were resident in Canada because central management and control was exercised in Canada by the principal beneficiaries.

The Court held trust residence is determined by where the trust's real business is carried on, applying the central management and control approach used for corporations.

On the factual findings, the trustee's role was largely administrative and effective control occurred in Canada.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The court addressed sentencing for breaches of long-term supervision orders by Indigenous long-term offenders and reaffirmed the mandatory application of Gladue principles in every such case.

It held that sentencing judges must consider systemic and background factors and craft proportionate, individualized sanctions even for serious breaches tied to risk management.

In the first appeal, errors in principle required intervention and the custodial term was reduced to one year.

In the second appeal, the one-year sentence imposed by the appellate court was upheld.

A criminal appeal challenged a conviction for possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition under s. 95 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the trial judge reasonably inferred the required knowledge element from circumstantial evidence.

The Court held the verdict was not unreasonable and agreed with the majority of the intermediate appellate court.

The conviction was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

In an administrative law appeal, the appellant municipality challenged a referral decision by a provincial human rights commission to appoint a board of inquiry regarding alleged discriminatory school-funding arrangements affecting a minority-language school community.

The Court held that referral decisions at this preliminary screening stage are reviewable on reasonableness, with strong judicial restraint against premature intervention in ongoing administrative processes.

The Court clarified that older jurisdictional framing tied to preliminary questions should no longer govern this context.

Applying the proper standard, the commission had a reasonable basis in law and on the evidence to refer the novel and complex complaints for inquiry.

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.