Q.C.

The applicant Indian bands brought motions to vacate a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegation stemmed from the fact that the judge who authored the reasons had been the federal Associate Deputy Minister of Justice over 15 years prior, during the early stages of the litigation.

The Court dismissed the motions, finding that the judge's prior involvement was limited to a supervisory and administrative role, he had no recollection of the file, and a reasonable, right-minded person would not apprehend bias given the passage of time and the nature of his involvement.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault and declared a dangerous offender, receiving an indeterminate sentence.

The predicate offence occurred before the enactment of the long-term offender provisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in R. v. Johnson, held that the sentencing judge was required to consider the long-term offender provisions before declaring the accused a dangerous offender.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed and a new sentencing hearing was ordered.

The defendants appealed a jury's damages award.

Both parties acknowledged that the damages awarded by the jury were so high as to justify appellate intervention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted lower pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage awards for the respondents.

On consent, no order for costs was made.

The appellants appealed an order interpreting Articles 5 and 8.09 of a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act plan of compromise.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's interpretation was reasonable, fostered a fair and efficient administration of the plan, and was entitled to deference given his familiarity with the complex negotiating process.

A claim for rectification advanced for the first time on appeal was also dismissed for lack of an evidentiary basis.

The appellants appealed an order interpreting Articles 5 and 8.09 of a Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act plan of compromise.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's interpretation was reasonable, fostered a fair and efficient administration of the plan, and was entitled to deference given his familiarity with the complex negotiating process.

A claim for rectification advanced for the first time on appeal was also dismissed for lack of an evidentiary basis.

Following the release of the appeal judgment, the appellants requested clarification on the effect of the judgment on two aspects of the trial judge's order for interest.

The Court of Appeal clarified that interest on the respondents' share of Vicbir's RDTOH remains at 6% per annum from January 1, 2001.

The Court also clarified that interest on the share of sums payable to one of the respondents should be calculated on the net amount owing after deducting the sum she owed for reacquired shares.

Following the release of the appeal judgment, the appellants requested clarification on the effect of the judgment on two aspects of the trial judge's order for interest.

The Court of Appeal clarified that interest on the respondents' share of Vicbir's RDTOH remains at 6% per annum from January 1, 2001.

The Court also clarified that interest on the share of sums payable to one of the respondents should be calculated on the net amount owing after deducting the sum she owed for reacquired shares.

The appellants appealed an order approving the sale of assets by the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to favour the successful tender on a de novo application brought under the Act.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded costs to the respondents.

The costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $6,687.50 all inclusive.

The respondent mother abducted her three children and fled to Mexico, fearing she would lose all access to them at an upcoming custody hearing.

She was acquitted at trial of abduction in contravention of a custody order after the trial judge left the statutory defence of necessity to the jury.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding there was no air of reality to the necessity defence because the anticipated loss of access through a lawful court order did not constitute 'imminent harm' and the respondent had reasonable legal alternatives available.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action against the respondent family physician.

The appellants alleged the respondent over-prescribed narcotics, causing the appellant husband's addiction.

The motions judge dismissed the action as statute-barred under the one-year limitation period in the Regulated Health Professions Act, finding the appellants knew the material facts when they complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons over two years before commencing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the discoverability rule did not postpone the limitation period as the appellants were aware of the material facts and did not require an independent medical opinion to commence the action.

The appellant jewellery store was robbed, but its video surveillance system failed to record the event due to an employee's error in operating the VCR.

The respondent insurer denied coverage, relying on a warranties endorsement requiring the system to be operational at all times insofar as it was within the Named Insured's control.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the employer responsible for the employee's failure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the endorsement distinguished between the 'Named Insured' and its employees, and that the insured had satisfied its obligation by instituting a reasonably fail-safe procedure.

The representative plaintiff, a disabled veteran, sued the federal Crown for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to pay interest on pension funds administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Parliament enacted legislation barring claims for interest prior to 1990.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the expropriative legislation was valid and not inconsistent with the due process or fair hearing protections of the Canadian Bill of Rights, as Parliament has the power to expropriate property without compensation using clear and unambiguous language.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found oppressive conduct in the management of a family holding company and ordered the corporation to purchase the respondents' shares for cancellation.

The trial judge devised a valuation formula that included an unequal distribution of the corporation's capital dividend account to compensate the respondents for their share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of oppression or his general valuation approach.

However, the Court allowed the respondents' cross-appeal in part, correcting a mathematical error in the trial judge's tax account formula to ensure the respondents were fully compensated for their pro rata share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found oppressive conduct in the management of a family holding company and ordered the corporation to purchase the respondents' shares for cancellation.

The trial judge devised a valuation formula that included an unequal distribution of the corporation's capital dividend account to compensate the respondents for their share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of oppression or his general valuation approach.

However, the Court allowed the respondents' cross-appeal in part, correcting a mathematical error in the trial judge's tax account formula to ensure the respondents were fully compensated for their pro rata share of the refundable dividend tax on hand.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) served a tax debtor and its account debtors with Requirements to Pay for unremitted GST prior to the tax debtor's assignment in bankruptcy.

The appellant, a secured creditor of the tax debtor, argued that the bankruptcy stayed the CCRA's right to receive the payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 317(3) of the Excise Tax Act, the funds became the property of Her Majesty upon receipt of the Requirement to Pay.

Consequently, the tax debtor had no residual right in the funds, and they did not become the property of the trustee in bankruptcy.

The appellants, former auditors and actuaries of the respondent law society, appealed the dismissal of their motions for summary judgment and to strike the statement of claim.

The respondents had sued for professional negligence, alleging the appellants understated deficits in the professional liability insurance plan.

The appellants argued that even if they were negligent, the respondents suffered no damages because the losses were 'passed on' to members through increased levies.

The motion judge dismissed the appellants' motions and struck the 'passing on' defence, proceeding on the basis of assumed facts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in deciding hypothetical questions of law based on assumed facts when material facts were in dispute.

The Court concluded that it was not plain and obvious that the 'passing on' defence is unavailable in Canadian law, and ordered the entire action to proceed to trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $50,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the Canada Elections Act requirement that a political party must nominate candidates in at least 50 electoral districts to obtain registered party status and its associated benefits.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 50-candidate threshold violates the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process guaranteed by section 3 of the Charter.

The Court found that the threshold diminishes the capacity of marginal or regional parties to communicate their ideas, thereby undermining the right of citizens to play a meaningful role in the electoral process.

The infringement was not justified under section 1 of the Charter, and the relevant provisions were declared unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $50,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.