Ryan D. W. Dalziel

The appeal addressed adverse possession in British Columbia, including whether continuity was proven across an evidentiary gap and whether inconsistent use is a required element.

The court held that inconsistent use does not form part of British Columbia adverse possession law under the province’s legislative history.

However, the appellate court improperly reweighed evidence and displaced factual findings that were open to the chambers judge absent palpable and overriding error.

The claim of uninterrupted possession failed on the record accepted at first instance.

The appeal was allowed and the chambers decisions were restored.

The Government of British Columbia and a class of consumers brought separate actions against tobacco companies regarding the health impacts of smoking and 'light' cigarettes.

The tobacco companies issued third-party notices against the Government of Canada, claiming contribution and indemnity based on negligent misrepresentation, negligent design, failure to warn, and statutory liability.

Canada brought motions to strike the third-party claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Canada's appeals and struck all third-party claims.

The Court held that Canada's alleged representations and design decisions regarding low-tar cigarettes were core government policy decisions immune from tort liability.

Furthermore, Canada did not qualify as a 'manufacturer' or 'supplier' under the relevant provincial statutes.

The government of British Columbia sought the British Columbia Utilities Commission's approval of a 2007 Energy Purchase Agreement between BC Hydro and Alcan.

The respondent First Nations asserted that the agreement should be subject to consultation under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, due to historical and ongoing impacts of the dam project on the Nechako River.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction to consider consultation but concluded the agreement would not adversely affect any Aboriginal interest, thus no duty to consult arose.

The Supreme Court of Canada restored the Commission's decision, holding that while the Commission had the power to assess the adequacy of consultation, its finding that the agreement caused no novel adverse impacts was reasonable.

The applicant union sought certification for employees working at Esso.

The employees were supplied by Best Personnel Services, a temporary personnel agency.

The core issue was whether Esso or Best was the true employer.

Applying the York Condominium factors, the Board found that Esso exercised fundamental control over the employment relationship, including direction, supervision, discipline, and determining when the employment relationship began and ended.

Consequently, the Board determined that Esso was the true employer for the purposes of the certification application.