Peter D. Banks

Media organizations challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory publication ban on bail hearing information under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, arguing it unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provision.

The Court found that while the mandatory ban limits freedom of expression, it is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The ban's objectives of safeguarding the right to a fair trial and ensuring expeditious bail hearings are pressing and substantial.

The mandatory nature of the ban is rationally connected to these objectives, minimally impairs freedom of expression given its temporary nature and limited scope, and its salutary effects outweigh its deleterious effects.

The taxpayer purchased an interest in seismic data for $100,000, paying $15,000 in cash and $85,000 via a promissory note.

He deducted the full amount as a Canadian exploration expense under the Income Tax Act.

The Minister reassessed, arguing the note was a contingent liability and the transaction was not at arm's length.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the liability under the promissory note was absolute, not contingent, because the obligation to repay came into existence immediately, even though the debt was limited recourse.

The Court also restored the trial judge's finding that the parties were dealing at arm's length.

The municipality issued a call for tenders for equipment and operators, specifying that all equipment must be 1980 or newer.

The successful bidder submitted a bid promising 1980 equipment, but the serial numbers provided corresponded to older equipment.

An unsuccessful bidder informed the municipality of this discrepancy before the contract was awarded, but the municipality did not investigate and awarded the contract to the successful bidder.

The unsuccessful bidder sued the municipality for breach of Contract A. The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the successful bid was compliant on its face, the municipality had no duty to investigate the bid, and the municipality's obligations under Contract A ended once Contract B was formed.