Ritchie

The respondent was charged with trafficking in a restricted drug after selling magic mushrooms containing Psilocybin to undercover police officers.

At trial, the judge granted a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, finding no evidence of trafficking because Psilocybin naturally occurring in mushrooms was not explicitly listed in Schedule H of the Food and Drugs Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the presence of the restricted drug within a mushroom does not destroy its character as a restricted drug, and there was sufficient evidence of trafficking to proceed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal regarding his dismissal during an extension of his probationary period.

The adjudicator had found the dismissal justified for a breach of discipline.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The appellant union sought to apply union dues check-off and wage entitlement provisions of its collective agreement to summer vacation relief staff hired by the respondent employer.

The summer students were not members of the bargaining unit and did not qualify as employees under the Public Service Labour Relations Act or the collective agreement.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the word 'person' in the collective agreement referred to prospective employees and did not include summer students who would not qualify as employees.

The appellant applied for a patent on chemical compositions comprising chemical compounds mixed with an adjuvant, discovering their usefulness as plant growth regulators.

The Commissioner of Patents rejected the application, which was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the discovery of a new use for an old compound is patentable as a 'new and useful art' under section 2 of the Patent Act.

The Court found that mixing the compounds with appropriate adjuvants was necessary to embody the idea in practical form, and the composition claims did not violate section 36 or section 41 of the Act.

Atco Ltd. made a takeover bid for Calgary Power Ltd., which sought an order from the Public Utilities Board of Alberta to restrain the takeover.

The Board found Atco to be an 'owner of a public utility' under the Public Utilities Board Act, giving it jurisdiction to intervene.

Atco appealed, arguing it was not an owner.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of 'owner' includes a person with the power to control the utility, extending to the operational realities of control, and that the proposed share acquisition constituted a 'union' requiring Board consent.

The appellant pleaded guilty to second degree murder on an indictment of first degree murder without the intervention of a jury.

The trial judge increased the parole ineligibility period to 15 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that a jury is not required for such a guilty plea, and declining to review the trial judge's application of principles regarding the parole ineligibility period.

The appellant was charged with fraud after falsely telling an undercover investigator that her car's transmission needed to be rebuilt.

The investigator, who knew the transmission only required minor repairs, was not deceived.

The trial conviction for fraud was substituted with attempted fraud by the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's actions went beyond mere preparation and constituted an attempt under section 24 of the Criminal Code, regardless of the impossibility of actual deception.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal which found section 205 of the Lands and Forests Act to be intra vires the provincial legislature.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the provincial legislation regarding obstructing a peace officer is valid and not superseded or rendered inoperative by section 118 of the Criminal Code.

L'intimé a été déclaré coupable d'homicide involontaire coupable et d'avoir causé illégalement un incendie à la suite du même événement.

La Cour d'appel a appliqué le principe Kienapple pour annuler la déclaration de culpabilité relative à l'infraction secondaire.

La Cour suprême du Canada a rejeté le pourvoi de la Couronne, confirmant l'application du principe Kienapple.

The respondent was convicted of manslaughter and unlawfully setting a fire arising out of the same incident.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal applied the Kienapple principle to set aside the conviction for the secondary offence of unlawfully setting a fire.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the Kienapple principle applied.

The appellants appealed their convictions for criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the Court of Appeal of Quebec did not err in upholding the trial judge's convictions.

The president of the appellant company drew a cheque payable to a real creditor but fraudulently endorsed it and cashed it himself, never intending the payee to receive the funds.

The appellant sued the respondent bank for cashing the forged cheque.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that because the drawer inserted the payee's name by way of pretence without intending payment to her, the payee was a 'fictitious person' under s. 21(5) of the Bills of Exchange Act.

Consequently, the bank was entitled to treat the cheque as payable to bearer and charge it to the appellant's account.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to recover withholding tax on a guarantee fee paid by the respondent to a non-resident German bank.

The appellant argued that a 1974 amendment to the Income Tax Act deemed such guarantee fees to be interest, thereby subjecting them to withholding tax.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the 1974 amendment did not override the Canada-Germany Income Tax Agreement Act, 1956, which exempted the non-resident bank's commercial profits from Canadian taxation.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the guarantee fees were not taxable as interest under the treaty.

The appellant challenged a conviction entered after the Crown commenced indictment proceedings on charges identical to informations previously dismissed by a provincial court judge who had erroneously concluded he lacked jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that the earlier court had competent jurisdiction, the accused had been put in jeopardy once pleas were entered, and the dismissals remained effective unless rescinded, quashed, or reversed.

Applying the autrefois acquit principles discussed in R. v. Riddle, the Court concluded that the Crown could not ignore the prior dismissals and simply commence new proceedings.

The plea should have succeeded and the appeal was allowed.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appealed a Federal Court of Appeal decision dismissing an application to review a county court judge's order under the Indian Act.

The county court judge had reversed the Registrar's decision to delete the respondents from a Band List.

The Federal Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction because the county court judge was acting qua judge, not as persona designata, and was therefore excluded from the definition of a federal board, commission or other tribunal under the Federal Court Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, explicitly rejecting the concept of persona designata and holding that whenever a statutory power is conferred upon a s. 96 judge, the power is deemed exercisable in an official capacity unless expressly provided otherwise.

The appellant union applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the St. Regis Band Council.

The Board granted certification, but the Federal Court of Appeal set it aside on the basis that the Band Council lacked corporate status and was therefore not a 'person' or 'employer' under the Canada Labour Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the Band Council, as a statutory creature of the Indian Act with powers to enact by-laws and hire staff, is a designated body of persons that can be considered an employer within the meaning of the Code.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after selling drugs to an undercover police officer.

The transactions were instigated by a police informer who repeatedly requested drugs from the appellant over several months.

The appellant argued the defence of entrapment.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

The majority held that, assuming the defence of entrapment is available under Canadian law, it did not arise on the facts of this case, as the evidence amounted to no more than persistent solicitation.

A strong dissent would have recognized the defence of entrapment and stayed the proceedings, finding the police conduct to be a calculated scheme of ensnarement.

The appellant company, through the Ontario Securities Commission, commenced an action against its directors and officers for alleged insider trading under the Ontario Securities Act.

The defendants argued that the provincial insider trading provisions were inoperative due to the doctrine of paramountcy, as they duplicated provisions in the federal Canada Corporations Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that both the federal and provincial provisions were intra vires under the double aspect doctrine.

The Court further held that the provincial provisions were not rendered inoperative by paramountcy, as mere duplication without actual conflict or contradiction does not invoke the doctrine.

The respondent was convicted of second degree murder after killing a man who was allegedly assaulting a third party.

The trial judge instructed the jury on self-defence and the use of force to prevent the commission of an offence, suggesting that excessive force could reduce murder to manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that there is no 'qualified' defence of excessive force under section 27 of the Criminal Code that reduces murder to manslaughter; it is either a complete justification or no defence at all.

However, the Court upheld the order for a new trial because the trial judge's charge to the jury was confusing, improperly included self-defence when there was no factual foundation, and failed to adequately explain the relationship between section 27 and the intent required for murder.

The appellant insurer terminated the respondent's fire insurance policy after learning he had been charged with trafficking marijuana.

The termination was effected pursuant to a statutory condition in the Insurance Act allowing cancellation without stated reasons.

The respondent filed a human rights complaint alleging denial of a service customarily available to the public without reasonable cause.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Human Rights Code is fundamental law that applies to the termination of insurance contracts, and the insurer's statutory right to terminate is subject to the requirement of reasonable cause under the Code.