Most Cited Cases

The appellants abandoned an application for judicial review and the respondents were awarded costs fixed at $187,682.51 on a partial indemnity basis. The appellants appealed the costs order, arguing the costs should have been referred for assessment and that the amount was excessive. The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge did not err in fixing the costs rather than referring them for assessment. However, the Court found the costs awarded were excessive and not fair and reasonable, noting the amount was virtually the same as a substantial indemnity award and the proceedings relied on the same record as an earlier application. The appeal was allowed and the costs award was reduced to $63,000.

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 appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a trial that hinged on the credibility of the accused versus the complainant. During the main charge, the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in a brief recharge requested by the Crown, the judge erroneously framed the core issue as whether the jury believed the complainant or the accused, omitting the third alternative that they might disbelieve the accused but still have a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court of Canada held that, despite the error in the recharge, the charge read as a whole adequately instructed the jury on the proper standard of proof, given the correct instructions in the main charge and the short time elapsed before the recharge. The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged firearms convictions arising from a street encounter with police, alleging arbitrary detention and breach of the right to counsel before he disclosed possession of a firearm. The Court held that a psychological detention had crystallized during the encounter, that the detention was arbitrary under s. 9, and that the failure to advise of counsel breached s. 10(b). The Court reformulated the legal framework for detention and established a revised three-part approach to exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2), ultimately admitting the firearm because the police conduct, though unconstitutional, was not egregious and the evidence was highly reliable and essential. The Court also held that simple movement of a firearm from place to place did not constitute a 'transfer' for the purpose of the weapons trafficking offence, and entered an acquittal on that count.

The appellant was rendered a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident when the impaired driver failed to negotiate a sharp curve on a rural road. The trial judge apportioned 35% liability to the municipality for failing to post a warning sign. The Court of Appeal overturned this finding. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's decision, holding that the trial judge's finding of negligence was a question of mixed fact and law that should not be overturned absent a palpable and overriding error. The Court clarified the standards of review for questions of law, fact, and mixed fact and law.

The Court allowed the Crown's sentencing appeal, restored the trial sentence of six years and six months for two counts of impaired driving causing death, and reduced the driving prohibition to two years and four months after accounting for the presentence no-driving period.

Landmark decision reforming the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions. The Court established a presumption that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review, rebuttable where the legislature has indicated a different standard (including by providing a statutory appeal mechanism) or where the rule of law requires correctness review on constitutional questions, general questions of central legal importance, or jurisdictional boundaries between administrative bodies. The Court also provided extensive guidance on conducting reasonableness review. On the merits, the Registrar's decision to cancel the respondent's citizenship certificate was found unreasonable, as the statutory exception denying citizenship by birth to children of foreign government employees was intended to apply only to individuals whose parents had been granted diplomatic privileges and immunities.

The appellant sought a stay for breach of the constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time after substantial pre-trial and trial delay in a drug prosecution. The Court held the delay was unreasonable and reformulated the governing section 11(b) framework by introducing presumptive ceilings of 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court or post-preliminary inquiry matters. Delay above the ceiling is presumed unreasonable unless the Crown proves exceptional circumstances outside its control. Applying that framework contextually, the remaining delay far exceeded the ceiling and was not justified by complexity, transition, or institutional strain. The convictions were set aside and a stay was entered.

The applicants, two major tobacco companies, sought an interlocutory stay to suspend the enforcement of new packaging regulations under the Tobacco Products Control Act pending their appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada challenging the Act's constitutionality. The Court established the three-part test for interlocutory relief in Charter cases: a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience. While the applicants demonstrated a serious question and irreparable financial harm, the Court held that the balance of convenience weighed heavily in favour of the public interest in health, which the regulations aimed to protect. The applications for a stay were dismissed.

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 appellant, a non-unionized public employee holding office 'at pleasure', was dismissed without cause and given four months' pay in lieu of notice. He grieved the dismissal, and an adjudicator ordered his reinstatement, finding a breach of procedural fairness and interpreting the governing legislation as requiring cause for dismissal. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's statutory interpretation was unreasonable and that public employees governed by a contract of employment are not owed a public law duty of procedural fairness upon dismissal. In doing so, the Court fundamentally restructured the framework for judicial review of administrative decisions, collapsing the three previous standards of review into two: correctness and reasonableness.

The appellants challenged a trial costs order requiring them to pay the respondent more than $509,000 in fees, much of it on an elevated indemnity basis after a without-costs offer to settle. The Court of Appeal held that elevated costs are warranted only through the operation of rule 49.10 or where the losing party engaged in reprehensible or egregious conduct deserving of sanction. Because the offer did not engage rule 49.10 and there was no sanction-worthy conduct, the elevated award was an error in principle. The court further held the amount awarded was not fair and reasonable under the governing costs principles and reduced the fees award to $300,000.

In a criminal appeal concerning circumstantial proof of possession of child pornography, the Court clarified that alternative inferences consistent with innocence may arise from evidence or absence of evidence, but must be reasonable rather than speculative. The Court held there is no mandatory formula for circumstantial-evidence instructions, though juries should be cautioned against inferential gap-filling and premature conclusions. Reading the trial reasons as a whole, the Court found no reversible legal error in the treatment of inferences, burden, or standard of proof. The guilty verdict was held reasonable on the totality of the evidence. The acquittal was set aside and Charter ss. 8 and 24(2) issues were remanded to the provincial appellate court.

This appeal concerned a variation application arising from a custodial parent's proposed relocation of the child to Australia. The Court held that the party seeking variation must first establish a material change in the circumstances affecting the child, after which the court must conduct a fresh inquiry into the child's best interests without any legal presumption favouring the custodial parent, while giving that parent's views serious respect. Applying that framework, the Court concluded that the relocation materially affected the child because it would significantly curtail frequent and meaningful contact with the access parent, but the child's best interests still favoured remaining in the custodial parent's care. The appeal was allowed in part only to vary access so it could be exercised in Canada rather than Australia, with no costs.

The appellants were former employees of a bankrupt shoe retailer. Following the bankruptcy, the employees' employment was terminated. The Ministry of Labour filed a proof of claim for termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, which the Trustee disallowed on the basis that bankruptcy does not constitute termination 'by an employer'. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the words of an Act must be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. The Court found that interpreting the ESA to exclude bankrupt employers would lead to absurd results and defeat the remedial purpose of the legislation.

The Crown appealed a Manitoba Court of Appeal decision reducing a six-year sentence for sexual interference with a four-year-old child to four and one-half years. The sentencing judge had employed a higher starting point despite the absence of a formal trust relationship, relying on the aggravating nature of the offence. The Court of Appeal found an error in principle. The Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal mischaracterized the sentencing judge's reasoning and that no error in principle was made. The Court provided comprehensive guidance on sentencing for sexual offences against children, directing that sentences must increase to reflect Parliament's legislative initiatives and society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children.

The accused, a stockbroker, was convicted of fraud after a jury trial. The trial judge instructed the jury that 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' should be understood in its 'ordinary, natural every day sense'. The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the jury charge insufficient. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that trial judges must explain the concept of reasonable doubt to juries. The Court provided a model charge, emphasizing that reasonable doubt is inextricably linked to the presumption of innocence, is not an ordinary everyday concept, and must be based on reason and common sense rather than sympathy or prejudice. The trial judge's failure to properly define the standard of proof was a fundamental error that could not be saved by the curative proviso.

The Crown appealed a decision substituting a conditional sentence for an 18-month custodial sentence imposed after guilty pleas to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The Court held that Bill C-41 and the conditional sentencing provisions were enacted to reduce incarceration and promote restorative justice, but conditional sentences remain punitive sanctions distinct from probation and generally should include restrictive conditions such as house arrest. The Court interpreted s. 742.1 purposively, holding that the sentencing judge need not first fix an equivalent jail term before considering community service of the sentence, and that community safety is a threshold inquiry focused on the specific offender's risk of reoffending and potential harm. While conditional sentences may satisfy denunciation and deterrence in appropriate cases, the sentencing judge's decision to impose jail here was not demonstrably unfit. The appeal was allowed, the custodial sentence restored, and its service stayed because the respondent had already completed the conditional sentence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a director's delegate's decision which overturned an arbitrator's finding that the applicant was not bound by the $3,500 limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). The Divisional Court held that the director's delegate reasonably concluded that sections 14 and 18 of the SABS create limits on liability rather than exclusions, meaning the burden of proof remains on the insured. However, the court found the director's delegate erred in concluding that the Minor Injury Guideline is entirely binding as if it were part of the SABS, holding instead that it is only incorporated by reference where expressly required for interpretation. The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for a new preliminary issue hearing.

The appellant, a woman with Canadian-born dependent children, was ordered deported. She applied for an exemption based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, which was denied without formal reasons, though she was later provided with the notes of the investigating immigration officer. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the duty of procedural fairness applied and required the provision of reasons, which was satisfied by the officer's notes. However, the notes demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and the decision was an unreasonable exercise of discretion because it failed to give serious weight and consideration to the best interests of the appellant's children.

The Crown appealed a sentence reduction in a case involving prolonged physical, sexual, and emotional abuse of the offender's children. The Court held that there is no legal ceiling capping fixed-term sentences at 20 years under the Criminal Code, absent special circumstances, and that the totality principle requires only that the global sentence be just and appropriate and proportionate to the offender's overall culpability. The Court further confirmed that retribution is a legitimate and important sentencing principle, distinct from vengeance and complementary to denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of society. Applying the deferential standard of review for sentence appeals, the Court held the appellate court erred by intervening absent demonstrable unfitness and restored the 25-year cumulative sentence.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay child support based on an imputed annual income of $30,000. The father had quit his job as a tool and die maker and enrolled as a full-time university student. The Court of Appeal held that 'intentionally' under section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines does not require bad faith or a specific intent to evade support obligations. The court upheld the finding that the father was intentionally under-employed but reduced the imputed income to $16,500, reflecting his capacity to work part-time while studying. The court also varied the retroactive support period to account for times the father provided childcare and was on academic probation.

Following the appellant's substantial success on appeal and at trial in a family law matter, the Court of Appeal fixed costs for both proceedings. The court noted the respondent's unreasonable conduct in prolonging the trial and failing to make or accept reasonable offers to settle. Applying the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the appellant $275,000 for the trial and $25,000 for the appeal, allowing the award to be offset against the appellant's spousal support arrears.

The accused was convicted of three sexual offences against his stepdaughter. The trial judge found the complainant credible and largely rejected the accused's evidence, but did not explicitly link each incident to a specific count or detail why the accused's denial failed to raise a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions, finding the reasons insufficient. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, holding that a trial judge's reasons must be read in context and are sufficient if they show why the judge reached the decision, without needing to detail every step of the reasoning process.

A custody and access appeal arising from a post-divorce dispute over whether an access parent could discuss and practise his religion with the children over the custodial parent's objection. The Court held that the governing standard under the Divorce Act is the best interests of the child, not a freestanding universal harm threshold, though risk of harm may be relevant in assessing the quality of access. The Court further held that ss. 16(8) and 17(5) of the Divorce Act do not violate Charter guarantees of religion, expression, association, or equality. The appeal was allowed in part: the religious discussion restrictions were removed or treated as unnecessary in light of undertakings, the wife retained the matrimonial home, certain debt allocations and costs awards were varied, and costs against counsel and the religious society were set aside.

The accused, a pediatrician, was charged with sexually assaulting four teenage female patients. At trial, the defence sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence that the perpetrator of such offences would belong to a narrow class of individuals (e.g., pedophiles or sexual psychopaths) and that the accused did not possess the characteristics of this class. The trial judge excluded the evidence, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the convictions, establishing a four-part test for the admission of expert evidence: relevance, necessity in assisting the trier of fact, the absence of any exclusionary rule, and a properly qualified expert. The Court held the psychiatric evidence was inadmissible as it lacked sufficient reliability and necessity to overcome the exclusionary rule against character evidence.

The accused was convicted of possession of child pornography after police searched his computer pursuant to a warrant. The warrant was obtained based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) sworn by a police officer after a computer technician reported seeing suspicious bookmarks and a webcam pointed at a child's play area. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the ITO, which contained misleading and incomplete information, failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused possessed child pornography. The Court distinguished between the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography, holding that possession requires control over the underlying data files, not merely viewing images online. The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and an acquittal was entered.

This is a costs decision arising from a custody and access appeal concerning three children. The father's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on all four grounds. The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $25,000, representing 60-70% of her actual costs. The decision addresses the presumption of costs in favour of successful parties in family law matters, the application of the Family Law Rules cost framework, and the impact of unreasonable conduct by both parties. The court also addressed costs related to an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court, declining to award costs for that stage due to the confusing nature of family law appeal routes in Ontario.

The appellant was convicted of conspiring to import a narcotic based largely on intercepted private communications. The trial judge refused to open the sealed packets containing the affidavits supporting the wiretap authorizations. The Supreme Court of Canada held that an accused is entitled to access the sealed packet, subject to editing to protect informants, to make full answer and defence. The Court established that a trial judge may review the authorization to determine if it complies with s. 8 of the Charter, and if unlawful, the evidence must be excluded under s. 178.16 of the Criminal Code. The Court also held that the accused may cross-examine the affiant with leave of the trial judge if necessary to make full answer and defence. A new trial was ordered because the appellant was denied the right to cross-examine.

The Supreme Court of Canada considered four appeals regarding retroactive child support. The Court held that parents have a free-standing obligation to support their children commensurate with their income, and courts have the jurisdiction to order retroactive child support under both the Divorce Act and provincial legislation. In determining whether to make a retroactive award, courts must balance the payor parent's interest in certainty with fairness to the child by considering the reason for the recipient parent's delay, the payor parent's conduct, the child's past and present circumstances, and potential hardship. The Court allowed the appeals in D.B.S. and T.A.R., restoring the chambers judges' decisions to deny retroactive support, and dismissed the appeals in Henry and Hiemstra, affirming the retroactive support awards.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability following his arrest by police for domestic assault. The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal found no evidence linking the police's actions to the applicant's ethnic origin or disability, noting the arrest was based on family complaints and police observations. The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.