Nathan J. Whitling

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant to answer questions refused during his examination for discovery.

The underlying action sought to enforce a Utah default judgment against the defendant.

The defendant had pleaded that he was denied natural justice in the Utah proceeding because he was legally prohibited from participating and was totally impecunious.

The Master ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding his financial capacity and whether he had received legal advice about participating in the Utah proceeding, finding that he had put his state of mind and financial capacity in issue.

The Master also ordered the defendant to specify which statements in a prior Stipulation of Fact he alleged were false.

This appeal addressed whether a provincial securities offence carrying a maximum sentence of five years less a day, together with a potential multimillion-dollar fine, engaged the right to a jury trial under s. 11(f) of the Charter.

The appellate record concerned conflicting lower-court rulings on whether the penalty scheme amounted to a more severe punishment requiring jury process.

The Court held that the accused was not entitled to a jury trial and adopted the majority reasoning of the provincial appellate court.

The statutory maximum imprisonment threshold was not transformed into a constitutionally jury-entitling punishment by adding the prospect of a financial penalty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a sexual assault conviction where forensic DNA source evidence was treated as probative despite defence evidence that it lacked scientific foundation.

The Court held that the trial judge applied materially different levels of scrutiny to the Crown and defence experts, accepting the Crown expert evidence at face value while intensely scrutinizing the defence expert.

That asymmetry was unwarranted and tended to shift the burden of proof.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial was ordered, with admissibility of the impugned DNA source opinion to be determined at any retrial if tendered.

The Court decided that under s. 20(a) of the International Transfer of Offenders Act, Omar Ahmed Khadr’s eight-year sentence could not be treated as five distinct concurrent eight-year sentences for placement purposes.

It held that the statutory scheme required placement in a provincial correctional facility and confirmed the Alberta Court of Appeal’s order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant government appealed a decision upholding the certification of a class action brought by elderly residents of long-term care facilities.

The residents alleged the government artificially inflated accommodation charges to subsidize medical expenses, claiming breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and a section 15 Charter violation.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, striking the claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and bad faith, finding that the government did not owe a fiduciary duty or a private duty of care to the residents in these circumstances.

However, the Court allowed the unjust enrichment and Charter claims to proceed to trial, and declined to decertify the class action.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent, a Canadian citizen, on terrorism charges after he was abducted, secretly detained, and abused in Pakistan by Pakistani authorities at the behest of the United States.

The extradition judge granted a stay of proceedings, finding that the human rights violations were shocking and that permitting the proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed, arguing the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction and erred in applying the 'clearest of cases' standard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the extradition judge had the residual jurisdiction to stay proceedings for abuse of process to protect the integrity of the judicial system, and did not err in finding this was one of the clearest of cases warranting a stay.

The respondent, a Canadian citizen, was detained by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay.

Canadian intelligence officials interviewed him, knowing he had been subjected to sleep deprivation, and shared the information with U.S. authorities.

The respondent sought an order requiring the Canadian government to request his repatriation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the conduct of Canadian officials violated the respondent's rights under s. 7 of the Charter.

However, the Court concluded that ordering the government to request repatriation was not an appropriate remedy, as it unduly interfered with the Crown prerogative over foreign affairs.

Instead, the Court granted a declaration that the respondent's Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to determine how best to respond.

Two Indian bands appealed dismissal of claims alleging that the Crown, as fiduciary, was obliged to invest oil and gas royalties held in the Consolidated Revenue Fund and had breached its obligations by paying interest under a long-term government bond formula.

The Court held that while the Crown owed fiduciary duties arising from the surrenders and trust-like relationship, the Indian Act, Financial Administration Act, and Indian Oil and Gas Act did not authorize the Crown to invest the royalties and instead required the funds to remain in the CRF subject to statutory payment mechanisms.

The Court further held that the chosen interest methodology was not imprudent, that the Crown was neither unjustly enriched nor unlawfully conflicted by the statutory arrangement, and that the money management provisions of the Indian Act did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.

The parties filed several motions in the context of an appeal regarding disclosure of materials to a detainee at Guantanamo Bay.

The respondent sought a sealing order to file fresh evidence obtained from U.S. proceedings, which was granted with conditions to allow the panel hearing the appeal to determine its admissibility.

The appellants moved to strike portions of the respondent's factum and the entirety of two interveners' factums, arguing the submissions lacked factual basis, were non-justiciable, and raised new issues.

The Court dismissed the motions to strike, holding that these objections should be argued before the panel hearing the main appeal.

The respondent, a Canadian citizen detained at Guantanamo Bay, sought disclosure of records of interviews conducted by Canadian officials with him and shared with U.S. authorities.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Charter applied to the Canadian officials' actions because the process at Guantanamo Bay violated Canada's binding international human rights obligations.

Under section 7 of the Charter, Canada has a duty to disclose the records of the interviews and any information given to U.S. authorities as a direct consequence, subject to national security and other considerations under the Canada Evidence Act.

The appellant, a paralegal, was convicted of fabricating court documents.

He sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his lawyers were in a conflict of interest, having advised another client to report his forgery to the police while simultaneously representing him on unrelated criminal charges.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the law firm breached its duty of loyalty by acting adversely to a current client, a stay of proceedings was not warranted because the conflict did not affect the fairness of the trial or amount to an abuse of process.