Robert MacKinnon

In multiple applications for judicial review challenging the 2020 firearms ban regulations, the applicants sought documentary disclosure from the Governor in Council under Rule 317 of the Federal Courts Rules.

The respondent objected on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality but failed to issue a certificate under section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Court held that without a valid certificate, the statutory absolute protection from review was not triggered.

Instead, the common law applied, requiring the Court to review the documents to balance the public interest in disclosure against confidentiality.

The Court ordered the respondent to file the materials under seal for the Court's review.

The Applicants sought leave under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules to pursue judicial review of multiple decisions in respect of which relief is sought, specifically challenging up to 600 individual technical opinions made by the RCMP adding firearms to the Firearms Reference Table.

The Court dismissed the motions, finding the Applicants failed to specify which technical opinions they wanted to review, thereby running afoul of Rule 301(c)(ii) and preventing the Court from determining the matters under review or exercising its discretion to make a Rule 302 exception.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction staying the operation of regulations prohibiting certain firearms pending the outcome of their applications for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the motions, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate with clear and non-speculative evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

The appellant, a disabled veteran and freelance journalist, commenced a defamation action in Small Claims Court against the Minister of Veterans Affairs for statements published in The Hill Times characterizing the appellant's criticism of a veterans' pension program as "mistruths" stated to suit his own agenda.

The respondents moved to dismiss the claim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides for summary dismissal of proceedings arising from expression relating to matters of public interest.

The deputy judge dismissed the claim, finding the statements related to a matter of public interest and that the appellant had not advanced credible and compelling evidence of substantial merit.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a deputy judge of the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to make orders under section 137.1.

The court held that deputy judges lack such jurisdiction, as the statute expressly refers to "judge" without including deputy judges, and the Legislature has demonstrated a pattern of expressly referencing deputy judges when it intends to grant them authority.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal and a motion in the Superior Court.

The court ordered that the appellant, the Attorney General of Canada, be awarded costs in the cause in both courts, fixed at a total amount of $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs sued Canada in the Superior Court of Justice, alleging complicity in their torture by foreign governments and Charter violations.

Canada redacted disclosed documents under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, claiming privilege on national security grounds, and applied to the Federal Court to confirm the prohibition on disclosure.

The plaintiffs moved in the Superior Court for unredacted production, arguing s. 38 unconstitutionally deprived the Superior Court of its core jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 38 is constitutionally valid at the pre-trial stage because pre-trial discovery against the Crown did not exist at Confederation, and set aside the motion judge's declaration regarding s. 38's validity at trial as premature.

Following the release of the main appellate decisions, the successful parties made costs submissions.

Counsel subsequently agreed to the quantum of costs for all four appeals.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs on a partial indemnity scale to TeleZone Inc., G-Civil Inc., Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc., and Michiel McArthur in the agreed-upon amounts.

Four appeals were heard consecutively to determine whether the Ontario Superior Court has jurisdiction over claims for damages against the federal Crown, or whether such claims must be brought in the Federal Court pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Courts Act.

The Crown argued that the claims constituted collateral attacks on federal administrative decisions and required prior judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court retains concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages in contract and tort against the Crown.

Section 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court only for prerogative remedies and declaratory relief, not for damages.

The plaintiffs' appeals were allowed and the Crown's appeals were dismissed.

Dans cet appel en diffamation portant sur un documentaire télévisé, la Cour a statué que l'avis écrit exigé par le par. 5(1) de la Loi sur la diffamation doit, avant l'introduction de l'action, préciser suffisamment les propos diffamatoires reprochés pour permettre au défendeur de corriger, rétracter, justifier ou atténuer.

La lettre initiale de la demanderesse, qui alléguait de façon générale que l'émission était diffamatoire, était trop vague pour satisfaire à cette exigence à l'égard du radiodiffuseur et de la productrice.

Quant aux autres défendeurs, l'avis détaillé leur a été signifié seulement après la délivrance de la déclaration, ce qui constituait également un défaut fatal.

L'appel principal a été accueilli, l'appel incident rejeté, et aucune ordonnance n'a été rendue quant aux frais.

The appellants challenged a motion decision permitting a broadcast libel action to proceed despite an allegedly deficient pre-action notice.

The court held that s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act requires written notice before commencement of the action and that failure to comply is an absolute bar, not a mere irregularity.

Applying the governing notice standard, the court found the plaintiff's initial letter too general to specify the matter complained of, because it did not identify with sufficient clarity which statements in the broadcast were alleged to be libellous.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal was dismissed, and the entire action was barred against all defendants.

The appellant was subpoenaed as a Crown witness at a preliminary inquiry but refused to be sworn and was abusive toward the presiding judge.

The judge convicted him of contempt of court instanter, without notice, a show cause hearing, or an opportunity to consult counsel.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction, holding that while the judge was justified in initiating summary contempt procedures, there was no urgent and imperative need to forego the usual steps required by natural justice.