McLachlin C.J.

The appellant hospital terminated the grievor's employment after a three-year absence due to illness, relying on an automatic termination clause in the collective agreement.

The union grieved the termination, arguing the employer failed in its duty to accommodate.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding the employer had accommodated the grievor beyond the collective agreement's requirements and that she remained totally disabled.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that while a collective agreement cannot contract out of human rights legislation, a negotiated termination clause is a significant factor in assessing the employer's duty to accommodate and undue hardship.

The appellants, members of the Tsartlip Indian Band, were convicted under provincial wildlife legislation for hunting at night with an illuminating device.

They appealed, arguing the legislation infringed their right to hunt under the North Saanich Treaty of 1852.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the treaty right to hunt includes the right to hunt at night with illumination.

The Court found that while the province can regulate safety, the absolute prohibition on night hunting was overbroad and constituted a prima facie infringement of the treaty right.

Consequently, the provincial law could not be incorporated under s. 88 of the Indian Act and was inapplicable to the appellants.

The respondents, members of the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq First Nations, were charged with unlawful possession or cutting of Crown timber under New Brunswick's Crown Lands and Forests Act.

They claimed an aboriginal right to harvest timber for personal use.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the respondents possess an aboriginal right to harvest wood for domestic uses on Crown lands traditionally used for that purpose by their respective First Nations.

The Court clarified the Van der Peet test, holding that a practice undertaken for survival purposes can be considered integral to an aboriginal community's distinctive culture, and that the right to harvest wood for domestic uses has no commercial dimension.

The syndic of the Ordre des pharmaciens began an inquiry into allegations that generic drug manufacturers were providing illegal kickbacks to pharmacists.

The syndic requested documents from a manufacturer under s. 122 of the Professional Code.

The manufacturer refused, arguing the provision only applied to professionals.

The syndic sought and obtained a general law injunction to compel disclosure.

The Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 122 applies to third parties and that a general law injunction is available to enforce the syndic's investigatory powers despite the existence of specific penal remedies in the Code.

The accused was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit sexual assault and sentenced to imprisonment followed by probation.

The probation order required him to abstain from alcohol and drugs and to submit to bodily substance testing on demand to monitor compliance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while an abstention condition is authorized, sentencing judges have no statutory authority under the Criminal Code to compel the provision of bodily samples for enforcement purposes as part of a probation order.

The respondent requested access to government documents relating to his prosecution for regulatory offences, which had been quashed or stayed.

The government denied access to many documents, claiming solicitor-client privilege under s. 23 of the Access to Information Act, which was interpreted to include litigation privilege.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that litigation privilege, unlike legal advice privilege, expires with the litigation that gave rise to it, absent closely related proceedings.

Since the penal proceedings had terminated and the respondent's civil action for abuse of process was not closely related, the litigation privilege had expired and the documents were not exempt from disclosure.

The United States sought the extradition of the appellants under the 'record of the case' method.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the evidentiary provisions of the Extradition Act, arguing they violated section 7 of the Charter by allowing committal on unreliable evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions are constitutional because section 29(1) of the Act grants the extradition judge the discretion to refuse committal if the evidence is manifestly unreliable or unavailable for trial.

The appeals were dismissed and the committals for extradition were upheld.

The appellant, a director of public security, asked a subordinate officer to prepare a supplementary accident report regarding his daughter's car accident.

The supplementary report concluded his daughter was not at fault, saving the appellant a $250 insurance deductible.

He was convicted of breach of trust by a public officer under s. 122 of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal, establishing a five-part test for the offence.

The Court held that the offence requires both a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of the office, and an intention to use the office for a purpose other than the public good.

The appellant's conduct was found to be a mere error in judgment lacking the requisite mens rea and actus reus.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed an order granting a requester's counsel access to records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege for the purpose of arguing a judicial review application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that records subject to a claim of solicitor-client privilege may only be disclosed where 'absolutely necessary'.

The Court found no such absolute necessity in this case.

The Court also held that while the procedural provisions of the Access Act prohibiting disclosure apply to the Commissioner, courts on judicial review are governed by their own procedural rules but must adopt procedures to protect confidentiality until a substantive decision is made.

The respondent's long-term disability benefits were terminated by her insurer based on video surveillance, despite a lack of medical evidence indicating she could return to work.

After five years of denied benefits, the insurer reinstated them shortly before trial.

The trial judge awarded $20,000 in damages for mental distress but denied punitive damages, finding no bad faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the mental distress award and added $100,000 in punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the insurer's appeal in part, setting aside the punitive damages but upholding the mental distress award.

The Court held that damages for mental distress for breach of contract are recoverable under the Hadley v. Baxendale principle if they were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties, which is the case for disability insurance contracts.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 10 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act applies only to civilian staff appointed and employed by the RCMP Commissioner.

It does not apply to civilian staff appointed or employed by a municipality under a police services agreement entered into by the Solicitor General pursuant to s. 20 of the Act.

The appellants were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver who had just left a BYOB house party hosted by the respondents.

The appellants sued the social hosts, arguing they owed a duty of care to third-party users of the highway.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that social hosts do not owe a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by an intoxicated guest's conduct, unless the host's conduct implicates them in the creation or exacerbation of the risk.

The Court found that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable and that there was no positive duty to act.

The appellant appealed his convictions for first degree murder and three counts of attempted murder.

The issues on appeal included whether the trial judge erred in not putting the defence of mental disorder automatism to the jury, in summarizing expert testimony, and in charging the jury on the mens rea for criminal harassment.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, adopting the reasons of the majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal.

The appellant, a university student, submitted a term paper with an unfootnoted appendix containing a first-person account of child abuse.

Her professor suspected the account was autobiographical and reported it to the Director of the School of Social Work, who forwarded the report to Child Protection Services without seeking an explanation from the student.

The student was placed on the Child Abuse Registry, destroying her career prospects.

A jury found the university and professors negligent and awarded $839,400 in damages.

The Court of Appeal set aside the award, finding the action barred by the Child Welfare Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the jury's verdict, holding that the professors lacked reasonable cause to make the report and thus were not protected by the statute.

The appellant brought an application in French against the respondent municipality.

The municipality presented its pleadings in English.

The appellant objected, arguing that section 22 of the Official Languages Act required the municipality, as an 'institution', to adopt the official language chosen by the other party in civil proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the definition of 'institution' in the Act does not include municipalities, and therefore the municipality was not obliged to use the appellant's chosen language.

The Court also held that the obligation under section 22 does not extend to translating evidence or case law.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

At trial, he testified he had consumed two large beers, and a defence expert testified that based on this consumption, his blood alcohol level should have been much lower than the breathalyzer results.

The trial judge rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and therefore rejected the expert opinion based on it, convicting the accused.

The Superior Court and Court of Appeal overturned the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that an expert opinion based on rejected testimony cannot constitute 'evidence to the contrary' to rebut the statutory presumption of accuracy of breathalyzer results.

The federal government approved the construction of a winter road through Wood Buffalo National Park, which would traverse the traditional hunting and trapping grounds of the Mikisew Cree First Nation.

The Mikisew argued this infringed their rights under Treaty 8.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Crown has a treaty right to 'take up' lands for purposes such as transportation, this right is subject to the honour of the Crown and the duty to consult.

The Court found that the Crown failed to adequately consult the Mikisew before approving the road, thereby breaching its duty.

The appeal was allowed and the Minister's approval was quashed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing the trial judge erred in the recharge to the jury regarding his criminal record and by failing to instruct the jury on post-offence conduct.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding that the recharge on the criminal record could not have misled the jury when read in context.

The Court also held there was no error in failing to instruct on post-offence conduct, noting such an instruction was not requested at trial.

The father applied to reduce his child support payments after the child began spending 50 percent of the time with him.

The Supreme Court of Canada established the proper approach to calculating child support under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines for shared custody arrangements.

The Court held that there is no presumption in favour of the Guidelines amount or a simple set-off.

Instead, courts must take a contextual approach, considering the Table amounts, the increased costs of shared custody, and the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and the child.

The father was ordered to pay $500 per month.

The appellants, former employees of Stelco in Quebec, sought early retirement benefits under Stelco's pension plan after plant closures.

The plan was governed by Ontario law.

Ontario's Superintendent of Pensions ordered a partial wind up and approved a report granting early retirement benefits only to Ontario employees, while Quebec employees received deferred pensions under Quebec law.

The appellants did not contest this decision in Ontario but sued in Quebec based on their employment contracts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the action was an impermissible collateral attack on the Superintendent's final decision, barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and that the Quebec courts should decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens.