Richard Gaudreau

The appellant, an insurer of cargo damaged in a maritime collision, appealed the dismissal of its action against the owners of the anchored ship.

The trial judge had refused to hear expert evidence because she was assisted by assessors, following settled Federal Court practice.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the rule against expert evidence where a judge sits with assessors is a procedural rule that violates the audi alteram partem principle.

The Court revised the rule to permit expert evidence and require disclosure of advice given by assessors on matters of fact.

The appellants, members of the Algonquin people, were convicted of entering a controlled harvest zone without paying a motor vehicle access fee, and one appellant was convicted of fishing without a licence.

They argued they were exercising an aboriginal right to fish.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that aboriginal rights can exist independently of aboriginal title and that the failure of the French colonial regime to legally recognize such rights did not extinguish them.

The Court found the appellants had an aboriginal right to fish for food in the zone.

The federal fishing licence requirement was found to be an unjustified infringement of this right, but the provincial motor vehicle access fee was held to be a valid user fee that did not infringe the right.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder to the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the constitutionality of the constructive murder provisions under section 213(a) of the Criminal Code.

By consent of the Crown, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.