R. Ross Wells

The appellant, a beneficiary of an estate, sued the respondent bank seeking a declaration that a guarantee given to the bank by an estate company was invalid.

The guarantee was authorized by the appellant's uncle, who held a power of attorney for the appellant and was a co-executor.

The bank required the guarantee to secure a loan to the uncle's personal company.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the bank was not liable for knowing assistance because it lacked actual knowledge of the breach of trust, relying on a legal opinion letter.

The majority also held that the bank was not liable for knowing receipt, as it acted reasonably in the circumstances and had no duty to inquire further or require the appellant to obtain independent legal advice.

The appellants appealed a libel judgment arising from a press conference at which counsel publicly read and commented on contempt allegations against a Crown attorney that were later found to be untrue.

The Court held that the private defamation action did not constitute government action under s. 32 of the Charter, but confirmed that the common law must nonetheless develop consistently with Charter values.

The Court declined to adopt the American actual malice rule, holding that Canadian defamation law appropriately balances freedom of expression with the protection of reputation.

It further held that any qualified privilege attached to the occasion was defeated by the excessive, careless, and high‑handed dissemination of serious allegations.

The jury's awards of $300,000 general damages, $500,000 aggravated damages, and $800,000 punitive damages were upheld.

The appellant employer was found by a three-member panel of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have failed to bargain in good faith by not disclosing an impending plant closure.

Before the decision was finalized, the panel discussed the policy implications of the case at a full board meeting.

The appellant challenged the decision, arguing the full board meeting violated the rules of natural justice, specifically the principles of 'he who decides must hear' and 'audi alteram partem'.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that institutional consultation processes like full board meetings do not violate natural justice provided they are limited to policy discussions, facts are taken as given, no votes are taken, and parties are given an opportunity to respond if new grounds are raised.