Olga Redko

The applicant, a former border services officer, requested access to surveillance videos of his workplace during a shift where an altercation occurred.

The Canada Border Services Agency disclosed videos showing the applicant but redacted the faces of members of the public and other border officers, claiming the latter's images were personal information exempt from disclosure under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act.

On judicial review, the Federal Court applied a correctness standard and found the Agency erred.

Applying the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Dagg and Canada v. Canada, the Court concluded that images of federal employees in uniform and on duty fall within the exception in paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act (information relating to an employee's position or functions) and are thus not "personal information" protected from disclosure.

The Court ordered the unredacted videos disclosed.

A lawyer referred his clients to a financial advisor who was his personal friend, and over a period of four years repeatedly endorsed and encouraged the clients to invest with the advisor's firm.

The investments turned out to be part of a Ponzi scheme and the clients lost over $5 million.

The trial judge dismissed the professional liability claim, finding no causal link between the lawyer's faults and the clients' losses.

The Quebec Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial judge had assessed the evidence through a distorting lens leading to palpable and overriding errors.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal correctly identified palpable and overriding errors and that the lawyer's breaches of his duty to advise and duty of loyalty were a true cause of the clients' losses; the intervening fraud did not break the chain of causation.

Aroland First Nation and Ginoogaming First Nation sought partial summary judgment for a declaration that the Crown's duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is triggered by ongoing invasive testing (integrity digs and hydrostatic testing) on established natural gas pipelines traversing their traditional territories.

The defendants opposed, arguing no duty to consult or that the matter was unsuitable for partial summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding that the issue could not be fairly and justly decided through partial summary judgment due to the need for a careful, incremental approach to Aboriginal law, disputed facts regarding adverse impact, significant overlap with broader issues of duty scope and breach, and the novelty of the case.