Ritchie

The appellants appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision ordering the return of seized fish or its proceeds to the respondent.

The masters of foreign ships were convicted of illegal fishing, fined, and a portion of their cargo was ordered forfeited.

After paying their fines, the owners claimed the return of the remaining seized fish, arguing that under s. 6(9) of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, the 'final conclusion of the proceedings' occurred at the end of the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the phrase 'final conclusion of the proceedings' encompasses the entire appellate process, allowing the Crown to retain the seized goods until all appeals are exhausted.

The appellant appealed a jury award of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act following the suicide of the respondent's husband, which occurred sixteen months after a motor vehicle accident caused by the appellant's negligence.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the foreseeability of suicide.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties had agreed before trial to limit the jury's consideration solely to the issue of causation, thereby subsuming the issue of foreseeability.

The appellant insurer sought reimbursement from the respondent husband (named insured) and respondent wife (unnamed insured) for a settlement paid to third parties after the wife caused an accident while driving intoxicated.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the husband did not breach the statutory condition against permitting an intoxicated person to drive, as he had no reason to foresee her actions.

However, the Court found that the wife fell within the definition of 'insured' under the Insurance Act and was therefore liable to reimburse the insurer for breaching the statutory condition against driving while intoxicated.

The appellant union invoked interest arbitration clauses in expired collective agreements with two health units.

The arbitration boards found they had jurisdiction to proceed under the statutory bridging provisions of the Labour Relations Act and included the interest arbitration clauses in the renewal agreements.

The Court of Appeal quashed the inclusion of the clauses.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeals, holding that the boards had jurisdiction to hear the arbitrations and correctly interpreted the agreements as permitting the inclusion of the interest arbitration clauses in the renewal contracts.

The appellants, an employer and a union, appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision which held that the Canada Labour Relations Board had constitutional jurisdiction to grant certification for a unit of installers.

The installers were employed by a subsidiary of a federally regulated telecommunications company and spent the vast majority of their time installing equipment on the premises of the federal undertaking.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the Federal Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the reference under the Federal Court Act.

On the merits, the Court held that the installers' work was an integral part of the operation of the federal telecommunications undertaking, and therefore their labour relations fell within federal jurisdiction.

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council of New Brunswick referred questions to the Court of Appeal regarding the constitutional validity of establishing a unified criminal court with provincially appointed judges to try all indictable offences.

The Court of Appeal answered the questions in the affirmative.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the proposal was unconstitutional, as it would effectively transform an inferior court into a superior court, thereby depriving the Governor General of the power to appoint judges under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from their acquittal on a charge of conspiracy to commit arson.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to require the case to be put to the jury.

The appellant, a correctional officer, was denied eligibility for promotion because a Parliamentary Subcommittee report named him as the instigator of a prison riot, resulting in notoriety.

The Selection Board excluded him based on a restriction imposed by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'merit' under s. 10 of the Public Service Employment Act refers only to intrinsic characteristics, and the Selection Board should not have considered the unproven allegations.

The Court ruled that the Appeal Board, under s. 21, had a statutory duty to inquire into the truth of the Subcommittee's findings.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Appeal Board.

The appellant bank appealed against the respondents in an action in warranty.

Concurrently, the principal action appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Consequently, the Court held that the appeal in the action in warranty had become unnecessary and dismissed it without costs.

The Crown in right of Canada brought an action for possession of lands occupied by the appellant, claiming they were part of an Indian reserve.

The lands had been absolutely surrendered by the Indians to the Crown in 1895 to be sold, but were never disposed of.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the absolute surrender extinguished the Indian interest and removed the burden of section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Consequently, the beneficial interest in the lands reverted fully to the Province, leaving the federal Crown with no enforceable interest or status to bring the action for possession.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard two appeals concerning the legality of 'gating' an inmate upon release on mandatory supervision.

The Crown appealed the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision granting habeas corpus to an inmate, while another inmate appealed the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision denying habeas corpus.

The Court delivered an oral judgment adopting the reasoning of the lower courts that gating is illegal under the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed, and the inmate's appeal was allowed, resulting in the immediate release of the inmates.

The respondent husband made claims against his deceased wife's estate for contributions made to a duplex owned by the wife.

The parties had an oral agreement that the husband would acquire a half interest upon paying half the purchase price through monthly installments, but the wife died before payments were completed.

The husband also performed extensive maintenance and renovations.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the estate's appeal, holding that while the Family Law Reform Act did not apply to deceased spouses, the husband was entitled to the return of his payments in quasi-contract and compensation for his services based on the doctrine of constructive trust and unjust enrichment.

The debtor filed for bankruptcy after repaying the Bank, and the trustee brought an action in damages against the Bank for inventory lost while the Bank had taken possession.

The Bank brought an action in warranty against its mandataries.

The Superior Court allowed both actions, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding no evidence of gross fault to set aside the Bank's liability exclusion clause.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Court of Appeal's judgment.

The appellant, a building contractor, entered into an agreement to complete a housing scheme and purchase lots.

To assist the development, the appellant advanced $52,500 to the respondent trustee earlier than required.

The respondent kept the funds for his firm's fees instead of forwarding them to the mortgagee as required by the agreement.

The appellant sued for conversion and breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judgment in favour of the appellant, finding no evidence of an unambiguous promise by the appellant that would estop it from enforcing its strict legal rights.

The respondent supplied pipe to a contractor for a government construction project.

The contractor defaulted on payment.

The respondent sued the appellant, a compensated surety, under a labour and material payment bond.

The appellant argued the claim should fail because the respondent did not strictly comply with the bond's notice provisions and failed to exhaust its remedies under The Mechanics' Lien Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that compensated sureties cannot escape liability for minor technical breaches of notice provisions where no prejudice is suffered, and that there is no implied obligation for a claimant to exhaust other remedies before claiming under the bond.

The accused was involved in a motor vehicle accident where he backed into the complainant's vehicle, caused damage, and drove away without leaving his name and address.

He was acquitted at trial, but the Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the presumption of intent to escape civil and criminal liability under section 233(3) of the Criminal Code applies upon proof of any one of the three enumerated elements (failure to stop, failure to give name and address, or failure to offer assistance).

The Crown's appeal was allowed and the conviction was restored.

The Crown appealed a Court of Appeal decision that set aside the accused's conviction for attempted rape and ordered a new trial.

At trial, the judge held an in camera hearing under s. 142 of the Criminal Code and excluded evidence of the complainant's post-offence sexual conduct.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by excluding the post-offence conduct on the basis that it was irrelevant in principle, rather than properly weighing its necessity for a just determination of fact as required by s. 142(1).

The respondent injured two members of the Canadian Armed Forces in a motor vehicle accident.

The Crown brought an action per quod servitium amisit to recover the medical expenses and wages paid to the injured servicemen during their recovery.

The Court of Appeal held that the action was restricted to menial and domestic servants and dismissed the claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that section 37 of the Federal Court Act deems armed forces members to be servants of the Crown, and the per quod action is available to the Crown to recover its expenses.

The appellant, an illegitimate child of an Indian father and a non-Indian mother, was denied registration under the Indian Act on the basis that section 11(1)(c) applied only to legitimate descendants.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the plain meaning of section 11(1)(c) does not include a requirement of legitimacy.

The Court declined to read the word 'legitimate' into the provision, finding that the appellant met the criteria as a direct descendant in the male line.

The respondent, a fisherman, was denied unemployment insurance benefits based on Regulation 85 of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, which imposed a shorter qualifying period for fishermen than for other insured persons.

The Federal Court of Appeal held the regulation ultra vires as it conflicted with the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing that a different qualifying period was not necessary to extend unemployment insurance to fishermen and that the harsher requirement was not authorized by the Act.