Nathaniel Carnegie

These joined constitutional appeals challenged British Columbia’s automatic roadside driving prohibition regime for alcohol-related roadside screening results.

The Court held the scheme was within provincial jurisdiction over licensing and highway safety and did not create an offence engaging section 11(d).

The Court also held that roadside breath demands under the scheme engaged section 8 and that the former fail branch was unreasonable because serious immediate consequences were imposed without meaningful review of test reliability.

The section 8 breach for the fail branch was not justified under section 1.

Both appeals were dismissed, with partial dissent on section 8.

The Governor in Council referred the proposed federal Securities Act to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine its constitutional validity.

The proposed Act sought to create a single national securities regulator and a comprehensive federal regime for securities regulation.

The federal government argued the Act was a valid exercise of its general trade and commerce power under s. 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court applied the General Motors test and concluded that while certain aspects of the securities market are national in scope, the main thrust of the Act was the day-to-day regulation of securities, which falls under provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights (s. 92(13)).

Consequently, the Court found the proposed Act unconstitutional, though it noted that a cooperative federal-provincial approach remains available.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment declaring that the parties had entered into a binding and enforceable settlement agreement.

The agreement required the appellant to deliver a final version of a DVD in exchange for an additional $10,000 payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial, as the appellant's counsel had clearly and unequivocally accepted the offer via email.

The court also rejected arguments of economic duress and repudiation.

The Municipality of Grey Highlands brought a motion to intervene as an added party in an appeal concerning a permit to take water and related official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The respondent supported the application, while the appellants opposed it.

The Chief Justice found that the Municipality had an immediate interest in the subject matter, having been a party before the Ontario Municipal Board, and that its addition would not delay or prejudice the appellants.

The motion to intervene was granted.