Marie Deschamps

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that struck down the section 38 scheme of the Canada Evidence Act as unconstitutional.

The scheme grants the Federal Court jurisdiction to determine questions of disclosure of information pertaining to international relations, national defence, or national security.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the scheme does not violate section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or section 7 of the Charter.

The Court found that the scheme preserves the full authority and independence of the judge presiding over the criminal trial to do justice between the parties, including entering a stay of proceedings if necessary to protect the accused's right to a fair trial.

The accused was charged with a minor traffic offence and claimed the proceedings were a nullity because the court documents were uniquely in English, arguing that the provincial Languages Act was unconstitutional.

After exhausting his funds during a lengthy trial, the accused applied for interim costs.

The provincial court granted the order, but the superior court set it aside for lack of jurisdiction, instead using its own inherent jurisdiction to grant the interim costs.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the superior court's order, finding that superior courts have inherent jurisdiction to assist inferior courts to prevent a serious injustice, and that the case met the criteria for public interest funding.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon, challenging the adequacy of the identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority finding that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and contained no error in applying the law to the facts.

Fish J. dissented, arguing that the trial judge's inferences regarding identification did not flow logically from the evidence.

The CBC appealed a decision dismissing its motion to broadcast a video recording of a statement made by the accused to the police, which was tendered as an exhibit at trial.

The trial judge had held that the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division prohibited broadcasting the recording.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rules prohibit broadcasting recordings of proceedings, not exhibits.

Access to exhibits is governed by the open court principle, and trial judges must apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test to determine if broadcasting should be limited.

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the accused had been acquitted.

The media organizations challenged rules and a directive that limited filming, taking photographs, and conducting interviews to predetermined locations in courthouses, and prohibited the broadcasting of official audio recordings of hearings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while these activities are protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and the measures infringe freedom of expression, the limits are reasonable and justified under s. 1.

The measures advance the pressing and substantial objective of maintaining the fair administration of justice by ensuring the serenity of hearings, protecting the privacy of litigants, and reducing stress on witnesses.

The appellant, a US-based distributor of the patented medicine Thalomid, sold the drug to Canadians through the Special Access Programme.

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board requested pricing information, asserting jurisdiction under the Patent Act over medicines 'sold in any market in Canada'.

The appellant argued that under commercial law principles, the sales occurred in the United States.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Board's decision, finding that a purposive interpretation of the Patent Act supported the Board's consumer protection mandate to regulate prices of medicines delivered and dispensed in Canada, regardless of the commercial locus of the sale.

The appellant, a former member of the Canadian Forces, brought a class action against the Crown challenging the deduction of his disability pension from his long-term disability benefits.

The Crown argued the action should be stayed because the lawfulness of the deduction could only be challenged by judicial review.

Applying TeleZone, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action and declined to exercise its residual discretion to stay the proceedings, as the essential character of the claim was for alleged breaches of s. 15(1) of the Charter rather than a veiled application for judicial review.

During a labour dispute, veterinarians employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stopped working, halting meat inspections at Quebec slaughterhouses.

The CFIA subsequently ordered the uninspected meat destroyed.

The slaughterhouse operators sued the veterinarians and their union for damages in the Quebec Superior Court.

The defendants brought recourses in warranty against the CFIA.

The CFIA moved to dismiss, arguing the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because its decision had not been quashed on judicial review by the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CFIA's appeal, holding that judicial review is not a prerequisite for a civil action for damages against the federal Crown, and that a lawful administrative decision can still constitute a civil fault under Quebec law.

The appellant generic drug manufacturer sought damages against the federal Crown for losses incurred when Health Canada prohibited the sale of its drug.

The Crown successfully moved for summary judgment in the lower courts on the basis that the appellant was required to first invalidate the prohibition decision via judicial review.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone.

The Court held that section 17 of the Federal Courts Act grants concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown, and nothing in the Act requires a plaintiff to successfully challenge the underlying administrative decision on judicial review before pursuing a tort action.

The appellant obtained import permits from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to import wheat.

The permits were revoked while the cargo was en route, and a new permit with different conditions was issued, causing the appellant to incur additional costs.

The appellant brought an action for damages in the Federal Court without first seeking judicial review of the licensing decisions.

The Crown successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that judicial review was a prerequisite.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone, holding that the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown and that a prior successful judicial review application is not required.

The respondent, a prison inmate, spent over four years in solitary confinement.

He brought an action for damages in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the federal Crown and a prison warden, alleging arbitrary detention and cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Charter.

The appellants argued that the claim was a collateral attack on the segregation orders and that the respondent must first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in TeleZone, held that the Federal Courts Act does not grant the Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction over such damages claims, and the provincial superior court has jurisdiction to hear the action without prior judicial review.

The respondent, TeleZone Inc., brought an action for damages against the federal Crown in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice after its application for a telecommunications licence was rejected by Industry Canada.

The Attorney General of Canada challenged the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, arguing that based on the Grenier principle, the claim was a collateral attack on the Minister's decision and that TeleZone had to first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, overruling Grenier.

The Court held that the Federal Courts Act and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act grant concurrent jurisdiction to provincial superior courts to hear damages claims against the federal Crown, and there is no requirement to first quash the underlying administrative decision via judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal which held that several provisions of the federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act were ultra vires Parliament.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part.

A majority of the Court found that the provisions regulating controlled activities (such as clinical practice and research) exceeded Parliament's criminal law power and intruded into provincial jurisdiction over health and property and civil rights.

However, provisions prohibiting specific negative practices, such as the use of reproductive material without consent, were upheld as valid criminal law.

The debtor company commenced CCAA proceedings and obtained a stay.

It owed unremitted GST to the Crown.

The ETA creates a deemed trust for unremitted GST, but the CCAA nullifies statutory deemed trusts in favour of the Crown.

The chambers judge ordered the GST funds segregated in the Monitor's trust account.

When reorganization failed, the debtor sought to make an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Crown sought immediate payment of the GST funds.

The Supreme Court held that the CCAA rule prevails, meaning the Crown ranks as an unsecured creditor for GST claims during CCAA proceedings.

The Court also held that the chambers judge had the discretion to partially lift the stay to allow the assignment in bankruptcy, and that no express trust was created by segregating the funds.

The appellant entered his estranged wife's apartment uninvited and discovered her in bed with her new boyfriend.

The appellant attacked them both, repeatedly stabbing and killing the boyfriend.

At trial, the judge accepted the defence of provocation and convicted the appellant of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal set aside the manslaughter conviction and substituted a conviction for second degree murder, finding no air of reality to the provocation defence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the discovery of an estranged spouse's involvement with another person does not constitute an 'insult' within the meaning of section 232 of the Criminal Code, nor did the appellant's actions meet the requirement of suddenness.

The appellant, a Convention refugee in Canada, was sought for extradition by Romania to serve a prison sentence for forging visas.

The Minister of Justice ordered his surrender, applying a test that required the appellant to prove he would face persecution that shocks the conscience.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its concurrent decision in Németh v. Canada (Justice).

The Court held that the Minister applied the wrong legal principles because the appellant's refugee status had not been revoked, and the Minister should have considered section 44(1)(b) of the Extradition Act rather than requiring the appellant to prove persecution under section 44(1)(a).

The matter was remitted to the Minister for reconsideration.

The appellants, recognized as Convention refugees in Canada due to persecution in Hungary based on their Roma ethnic origin, were sought for extradition by Hungary on fraud charges.

The Minister of Justice ordered their surrender, concluding they had not established a continuing risk of persecution.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Minister has the authority to extradite a refugee, the Minister erred by placing the burden on the refugees to prove they would face persecution if returned.

The Court ruled that under section 44(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, a recognized refugee is presumed to face prejudice, and the burden is on the state to show the person is no longer entitled to refugee protection.

The police suspected the accused of operating a marijuana grow operation and requested the electric utility company to install a digital recording ammeter (DRA) on the power line to his home without a warrant.

The DRA data showed a cyclical pattern of electricity use consistent with a grow operation, which the police used to obtain a search warrant.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the DRA data, given the nature of the information revealed and the regulatory scheme permitting the utility to disclose customer information to police.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were restored.

The Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation entered into a modern comprehensive land claims agreement with the federal and territorial governments.

Under the treaty, members have a right of access for hunting and fishing for subsistence in their traditional territory.

A non-Aboriginal resident applied for an agricultural land grant within this territory, which was approved by the territorial government.

The First Nation sought judicial review, arguing the government failed to consult and accommodate them.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples before making decisions that might adversely affect their treaty rights, even in the context of a modern comprehensive land claims agreement.

However, on the facts of this case, the duty to consult was at the lower end of the spectrum and was discharged by the government.

There was no duty to accommodate.