SCC 2007

The parties entered into a joint venture agreement to purchase and develop property.

When a creditor demanded repayment of a note, only one partner was willing to pay.

That partner's company purchased the note and eventually foreclosed on the property when the other partners failed to pay their shares.

The appellants sued for breach of the joint venture agreement and return of their investment.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the agreement was not terminated and had not been breached.

The Court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that the contract and the foreclosure proceedings provided a juristic reason for the deprivation.

The parties entered into a corollary relief agreement during their civil divorce, which included a commitment to appear before rabbinical authorities to obtain a Jewish religious divorce (get).

The respondent husband refused to provide the get for 15 years.

The appellant wife sued for damages for breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the agreement was a valid and binding civil obligation under Quebec law.

The Court further held that the husband could not rely on his freedom of religion to avoid paying damages, as the harm caused to the wife and the public interest in enforcing valid contracts and protecting equality rights outweighed any infringement on his religious freedom.

The trial judge's award of $47,500 in damages was restored.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after stabbing his common-law wife.

At trial, he raised the defence of extreme intoxication, claiming he had no memory of the events due to alcohol consumption.

The trial judge instructed the jury using a one-step charge focusing on actual intent rather than capacity to form intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's instructions on the defence of intoxication were adequate and that a one-step charge focusing only on actual intent should be used in all future charges on intoxication.

The appellant was arrested at a secluded marijuana plantation along with four others.

He was convicted at trial of illegal production of marijuana.

The appellant appealed, arguing the verdict was unreasonable as it was based solely on his mere presence at the scene.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the conviction rested on the cumulative effect of his apprehension at the scene, the rejection of his explanation, the nature of the offence, and other circumstantial evidence, rather than mere presence.

The accused was convicted of attempting to obstruct justice after a fire in a residential building he managed.

The trial judge found he attempted to falsify smoke alarm inspection records and rejected his testimony.

The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction, reasoning his conduct could be explained by a desire to have perfect records rather than an intent to obstruct.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that an appellate court cannot acquit based on speculation about an alternative explanation that is flatly contradicted by the accused's own testimony.

Domtar purchased a recovery boiler from C.E. (now ABB and Alstom).

The boiler's superheater developed leaks and cracks due to the use of H-style tie welds.

Domtar replaced the superheater and sued C.E. for latent defects and breach of the duty to inform.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the excessive cracking constituted a latent defect.

As a manufacturer, C.E. was presumed to know of the defect and failed to rebut this presumption, rendering its limitation of liability clause inapplicable.

C.E. was held liable for the replacement costs.

The Court also dismissed the appeals regarding the insurers, finding Chubb liable on its performance bond and Arkwright not liable due to a latent defect exclusion clause.

The appellants were convicted of various offences, including murder and criminal negligence causing death, relating to the death of their infant son.

The convictions were largely based on the expert testimony of a Crown witness.

Following the dismissal of their appeals by the Court of Appeal, fresh expert evidence became available that discredited the Crown's expert.

The Supreme Court of Canada admitted the fresh evidence and ordered a new trial on all counts, finding that the unreliable expert evidence was central to the Crown's case and could have affected the jury's verdicts on both the homicide and non-homicide charges.

The appellant was arrested for second degree murder and advised of his right to counsel.

During police interviews, he repeatedly asserted his right to silence, stating he did not want to talk.

The interviewing officer persisted in questioning him, and the appellant eventually made incriminating admissions.

The trial judge admitted the statements, finding them voluntary and not obtained in breach of section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that police persistence in questioning a detainee who has asserted the right to silence does not automatically violate section 7, provided the statements remain voluntary and the detainee is not denied the freedom to choose whether to speak.

The victim was shot by a hunter who had stopped his truck, left the engine running, and negligently fired at what he thought was a deer.

The victim sought to recover damages from the hunter's automobile insurer under s. 239(1) of the Insurance Act, arguing the injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use or operation of the vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shooting was an act independent of the use or operation of the truck, breaking the chain of causation.

The insurer's appeal was allowed, and the claim against the insurer was dismissed.

The respondents were catastrophically injured when two individuals dropped a large boulder from a highway overpass onto their vehicle.

The wrongdoers had used a vehicle to transport the boulders to the overpass.

The respondents sought to recover damages from their own insurer under the inadequately insured motorist coverage, arguing the injuries arose from the use or operation of the wrongdoers' vehicle.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the claim did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, as the rock throwing was an intervening act severable from the use of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and coverage was denied.

The appellants brought a class action for prospectus misrepresentation under s. 130(1) of the Ontario Securities Act.

The respondent company made an initial public offering with a prospectus containing a sales forecast.

Before the offering closed, internal analysis showed sales lagging due to unseasonably warm weather, but this was not disclosed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the company had no obligation to disclose the intra-quarterly results because they did not amount to a 'material change' under the Act.

The Court also held that the Business Judgment Rule does not apply to statutory disclosure obligations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

During an extradition hearing, the appellant disclosed in camera that he was a confidential police informer.

The extradition judge appointed an amicus curiae and subsequently ordered that media counsel and representatives be granted access to the amicus documents, subject to confidentiality undertakings, to argue whether the proceedings should remain in camera.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that informer privilege is absolute and non-discretionary, subject only to the innocence at stake exception.

The Dagenais/Mentuck test for discretionary publication bans does not apply.

The extradition judge erred in ordering the disclosure of privileged information to the media.

The appellant, an amateur youth soccer association operating exclusively in Ontario, applied to be registered as a charity under the Income Tax Act.

The Canada Revenue Agency denied the application on the basis that promoting sport is not a charitable purpose at common law.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the specific statutory provisions for national amateur athletic associations do not preclude other sports organizations from charitable status, the promotion of sport itself is not recognized as a charitable purpose under the common law.

The Court concluded that expanding the definition of charity to include amateur sports is a matter for Parliament, not the courts.

The appellant was wrongfully convicted of robbery after a police investigation.

He was later acquitted and sued the police for negligent investigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada recognized the tort of negligent investigation, holding that police owe a duty of care to suspects under investigation.

However, applying the standard of a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances, the Court found that the police conduct in this case, while flawed, did not breach the standard of care.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The applicant, an intervener in the court below, brought a motion to be added as a party under Rule 18(5) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to seek leave to appeal.

The underlying judgment declared that a child could have three parents.

None of the original parties or the Attorney General sought to appeal the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, holding that the applicant lacked a specific personal interest in the outcome of the litigation and failed to meet the test for public interest standing.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death after striking a pedestrian.

At trial, the appellant applied to exclude breath samples, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to demand them because there was evidence of alcohol consumption but not impairment.

The trial judge admitted the evidence and convicted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge made a misstatement regarding the requirement for evidence of impairment, his reasons read as a whole demonstrated he applied the correct legal test and relied on a combination of objective facts, including the circumstances of the accident, to find reasonable and probable grounds.

A 14-year-old child was apprehended and eventually placed in a secure treatment centre by court order.

The child's family sued the treatment centre and its social worker for negligence, claiming $40,000,000 in damages on the basis that the defendants treated the child as if she had been abused by her parents, which allegedly prevented her reintegration into the family.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that recognizing a duty of care owed by child protection service providers to the family of an apprehended child would create a serious potential for conflict with their paramount statutory duty to act in the best interests of the child.

The Court allowed the appeal and struck the statement of claim.

The appellant, an unauthorized distributor, imported genuine Côte d'Or and Toblerone chocolate bars into Canada.

The respondent, the exclusive Canadian distributor, registered the logos on the wrappers as copyrighted artistic works and sued the appellant for secondary infringement under s. 27(2)(e) of the Copyright Act to prevent parallel importation.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the respondent could not use copyright law to prevent the importation of the chocolate bars.

The Court found that an exclusive licensee cannot sue the owner-licensor for copyright infringement, meaning there was no hypothetical primary infringement to ground a claim for secondary infringement.

Furthermore, the incidental presence of copyrighted logos on the wrappers did not bring the chocolate bars themselves within the protection of the Copyright Act.

The appellant and three accomplices broke into a residence.

During the break and enter, the intruders repeatedly referred to having a gun.

A loaded handgun was later found in their getaway car.

The appellant was convicted of using a firearm while committing an indictable offence under s. 85(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that an offender 'uses' a firearm when they reveal its actual presence or immediate availability by words or conduct to facilitate an offence, and the weapon is in their physical possession or readily at hand.

The respondent applied for authorization to institute a class action against the appellant regarding roaming charges.

The service agreement contained an arbitration clause prohibiting class actions.

The Superior Court referred the matter to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal reversed, ordering the Superior Court to assess the validity of the arbitration clause first.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that under the principles in Dell Computer Corp., the arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to determine if the arbitration clause is abusive, as it requires a detailed factual inquiry on a mixed question of law and fact.