SCC 2010

The accused was convicted of possession of child pornography after police searched his computer pursuant to a warrant.

The warrant was obtained based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) sworn by a police officer after a computer technician reported seeing suspicious bookmarks and a webcam pointed at a child's play area.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the ITO, which contained misleading and incomplete information, failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused possessed child pornography.

The Court distinguished between the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography, holding that possession requires control over the underlying data files, not merely viewing images online.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and an acquittal was entered.

During a drug trafficking investigation, police discovered a loaded firearm in a hidden compartment of the respondent's vehicle while installing listening devices.

The trial judge found the search violated section 8 of the Charter but admitted the evidence under section 24(2), leading to a conviction for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and excluded the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis was entitled to deference and that applying the Grant framework supported admitting the evidence.

The accused was subjected to excessive force by police during his arrest for impaired driving and flight from police, resulting in broken ribs and a punctured lung.

The trial judge found breaches of the accused's Charter rights and reduced his sentences to conditional discharges under s. 24(1).

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of excessive force but substituted the mandatory minimum fine for the impaired driving offence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that while state misconduct can be considered in sentencing, a sentence cannot be reduced below a statutory minimum absent a constitutional challenge to the minimum itself.

During a bitter strike at the Giant Mine, a striking miner evaded security, entered the mine, and planted a bomb that killed nine replacement miners.

The surviving family members and a first responder sued the mine's security firm, the territorial government, and the national union in negligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the security firm and the government owed a duty of care to the miners, they did not breach the standard of care.

The Court also held that the national union and local union were separate legal entities, and the national union was not directly or vicariously liable for the criminal acts of the striking members.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Province of British Columbia issued a request for proposals (RFP) for the construction of a highway, restricting eligible bidders to six proponents.

The Province accepted a bid from an ineligible joint venture involving one of the eligible proponents and an ineligible third party.

The unsuccessful eligible bidder, the appellant, sued for breach of contract.

The Province relied on an exclusion clause in the RFP that barred claims for compensation as a result of participating in the RFP.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Province breached the tendering contract by accepting an ineligible bid.

The Court laid to rest the doctrine of fundamental breach and established a three-part test for exclusion clauses.

Applying the test, the majority found that the exclusion clause did not apply to the Province's conduct, as the appellant's claim arose from the Province's dealings with an ineligible bidder, not from the appellant's participation in the RFP process.

The respondent, a Canadian citizen, was detained by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay.

Canadian intelligence officials interviewed him, knowing he had been subjected to sleep deprivation, and shared the information with U.S. authorities.

The respondent sought an order requiring the Canadian government to request his repatriation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the conduct of Canadian officials violated the respondent's rights under s. 7 of the Charter.

However, the Court concluded that ordering the government to request repatriation was not an appropriate remedy, as it unduly interfered with the Crown prerogative over foreign affairs.

Instead, the Court granted a declaration that the respondent's Charter rights were violated, leaving it to the government to determine how best to respond.

MiningWatch Canada appealed a decision regarding the federal environmental assessment of a proposed copper and gold mine.

The responsible authorities had scoped the project to exclude the mine and mill, thereby conducting a screening rather than a comprehensive study.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the environmental assessment track must be determined by the project as proposed by the proponent, meaning a comprehensive study was required.

However, the Court limited the remedy to a declaration, declining to order the proponent to repeat the assessment process.