Morris J. Fish

The court determined the dispositive appellate issues on the evidentiary record.

The reasons address the principal submissions, apply the governing legal framework, and resolve the controlling questions.

Relief was granted or refused according to the applicable standard of review and the merits.

The court determined the dispositive appellate issues on the evidentiary record.

The reasons address the principal submissions, apply the governing legal framework, and resolve the controlling questions.

Relief was granted or refused according to the applicable standard of review and the merits.

The court determined the dispositive appellate issues on the evidentiary record.

The reasons address the principal submissions, apply the governing legal framework, and resolve the controlling questions.

Relief was granted or refused according to the applicable standard of review and the merits.

The court determined the dispositive appellate issues on the evidentiary record.

The reasons address the principal submissions, apply the governing legal framework, and resolve the controlling questions.

Relief was granted or refused according to the applicable standard of review and the merits.

Appeal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013 SCC 73, addressing the legal issues presented and disposing of the proceeding on the terms stated in the reasons and judgment.

Current and former sex workers challenged three Criminal Code provisions prohibiting bawdy-houses, living on avails, and public communication for prostitution purposes.

The Court held the provisions deprived security of the person by materially increasing risks of violence and preventing safety-enhancing measures, and that the deprivations were not in accordance with fundamental justice due to gross disproportionality and overbreadth.

The Court affirmed that lower courts may revisit precedent when a new legal issue or significant evidentiary change is shown, and confirmed deference to trial findings on social and legislative facts absent palpable and overriding error.

Section 210 (as related to prostitution), section 212(1)(j), and section 213(1)(c) were declared unconstitutional.

Invalidity was suspended for one year to permit legislative response.

This appeal and cross-appeal addressed whether Ontario’s SIU framework permits police officers involved in fatal incidents to consult counsel before completing duty notes.

The majority held the regulatory scheme does not permit consultation with counsel at the note-making stage, emphasizing transparency, public confidence, legislative history, and the duty to prepare independent, complete notes.

It rejected even limited pre-note legal consultation as inconsistent with the scheme’s objectives, while confirming officers may consult counsel after filing notes.

The cross-appeal was allowed, overturning the Court of Appeal’s allowance of basic legal advice prior to notes.

Dissenting reasons on cross-appeal would have preserved a narrow right to basic legal advice that excluded drafting assistance.

The employer appealed a wrongful dismissal damages award where the employee received pension benefits during the reasonable notice period.

The majority held pension payments from a defined benefit plan are generally deferred compensation and not indemnity for wage loss, so they are not deducted as a compensating advantage.

It emphasized that collateral-benefit deductibility depends on the nature and purpose of the benefit, contributory characteristics, contractual intention, and policy considerations.

Applying those factors, the employee’s pension entitlement did not reduce damages payable in lieu of notice.

The appeal was dismissed, with dissenting reasons favouring deduction under a single-contract performance analysis.

The Court allowed the Crown appeal, clarified the elements of uttering threats, and ordered a new trial.

It held the actus reus does not require proof that threats were conveyed to intended subjects or that anyone was actually intimidated.

It further held the mens rea is established if the accused intended the words to intimidate or be taken seriously, without requiring intent to convey the threats to their objects.

Appeal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013 SCC 67, resolving the legal issues identified in the reasons and disposing of the appeal as stated by the Court.

A former senior official of an international fisheries organization sued for wrongful dismissal and related employment remedies in Canadian court.

The organization invoked functional jurisdictional immunity under its governing privileges and immunities order, which grants immunity to the extent required for the performance of organizational functions.

The Court held immunity barred the managerial and dismissal-related claims because adjudication would unduly interfere with organizational autonomy, notwithstanding the absence of an internal dispute forum.

However, immunity did not bar the contractual separation-indemnity claim, which the organization conceded and which did not intrude on core functions.

The appeal was allowed in part and remitted for adjudication of that remaining claim.

These consolidated tax-planning appeals concerned errors in transactional documents that failed to reflect the parties’ common contractual intentions under Quebec civil law.

The Court held that, where parties mutually recognize drafting or implementation errors and amend their acts to align with their true agreement, courts may interpret and recognize those amendments under art. 1425 C.C.Q. The Court emphasized the distinction between exchange of consents and written expression, and rejected any acquired right of tax authorities to benefit from contractual errors once corrected by mutual consent, subject to third-party rights.

It also clarified that civil courts in such proceedings do not adjudicate the validity of tax assessments, which remain for competent tax forums.

The appeals were dismissed with costs throughout.

The appeal addresses the governing legal test and its application to the record before the appellate court.

The Court clarifies the proper analytical framework, applies it to the disputed issues, and resolves the appeal accordingly.

The reasons emphasize principled interpretation and consistency with established jurisprudence.

The disposition determines the parties' rights on the issues raised in the appeal.

The Court substantially dismissed the appeals and held Alberta’s privacy legislation unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression in the labour-relations context.

The statutory scheme failed to provide a mechanism to balance expressive activities during lawful picketing against privacy interests.

The Court declared the statute invalid, suspended the declaration for 12 months, quashed the adjudicator’s order, and awarded costs to the union.

Appeal decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2013 SCC 61, addressing the legal issues identified in the reasons and determining the matter on the basis set out by the Court.

This appeal addressed whether a place-search warrant, which did not specifically authorize computer or cellphone searches, permitted police to search digital devices found on site.

The Court held that while the warrant validly authorized a search for occupancy and ownership documents, it did not authorize digital-device searches absent specific prior judicial authorization.

Computers were treated as raising distinct and heightened privacy concerns under section 8, requiring targeted authorization before data searches.

Despite the breach, the Court admitted the challenged evidence under section 24(2), citing the then-uncertain legal landscape, otherwise reasonable police conduct, and strong societal interest in adjudicating serious drug charges on their merits.

The appeal was dismissed and the new-trial order upheld.

The appeal addresses the governing legal test and its application to the record before the appellate court.

The Court clarifies the proper analytical framework, applies it to the disputed issues, and resolves the appeal accordingly.

The reasons emphasize principled interpretation and consistency with established jurisprudence.

The disposition determines the parties' rights on the issues raised in the appeal.

Direct and indirect purchasers sought certification of a class action alleging unlawful price-fixing of high-fructose corn syrup and pass-through overcharges.

The majority held indirect purchasers may in principle sue, but certification failed for that group because there was no evidentiary basis that at least two members could self-identify as having purchased affected products during the class period.

It also held the direct purchasers’ constructive trust claim was plain and obvious to fail for lack of proprietary nexus and inadequacy of monetary remedy.

The appeal by the proposed indirect purchaser class was dismissed and the respondents’ cross-appeal was allowed.

Dissenting reasons would have found an identifiable class and certified the indirect purchaser claims.

The Court dismissed an appeal from authorization of a Quebec class action alleging international DRAM price-fixing and overcharges to direct and indirect purchasers.

It held Quebec courts had jurisdiction under art. 3148(3) C.C.Q. because economic damage was allegedly suffered in Quebec through a consumer contract concluded there.

The Court reaffirmed that authorization is a low-threshold screening stage and found an arguable case on fault, injury, and causation under art. 1457 C.C.Q. It accepted that passed-on overcharges can ground injury claims in Quebec civil liability and that aggregate loss allegations may suffice at authorization.

It also found adequate representation and no disqualifying conflict at this preliminary stage.

The Court dismissed the appeal from a second degree murder conviction.

The majority held the defence of provocation lacked an air of reality on the subjective element, particularly suddenness, and should not have been left to the jury, but affirmed the conviction.

A concurring judge would have held the defence was properly left to the jury, yet also dismissed the appeal on the Court of Appeal majority’s reasoning.