SCC 2011

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that struck down the section 38 scheme of the Canada Evidence Act as unconstitutional.

The scheme grants the Federal Court jurisdiction to determine questions of disclosure of information pertaining to international relations, national defence, or national security.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the scheme does not violate section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or section 7 of the Charter.

The Court found that the scheme preserves the full authority and independence of the judge presiding over the criminal trial to do justice between the parties, including entering a stay of proceedings if necessary to protect the accused's right to a fair trial.

The accused was charged with a minor traffic offence and claimed the proceedings were a nullity because the court documents were uniquely in English, arguing that the provincial Languages Act was unconstitutional.

After exhausting his funds during a lengthy trial, the accused applied for interim costs.

The provincial court granted the order, but the superior court set it aside for lack of jurisdiction, instead using its own inherent jurisdiction to grant the interim costs.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the superior court's order, finding that superior courts have inherent jurisdiction to assist inferior courts to prevent a serious injustice, and that the case met the criteria for public interest funding.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon, challenging the adequacy of the identification evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, with the majority finding that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and contained no error in applying the law to the facts.

Fish J. dissented, arguing that the trial judge's inferences regarding identification did not flow logically from the evidence.

The CBC appealed a decision dismissing its motion to broadcast a video recording of a statement made by the accused to the police, which was tendered as an exhibit at trial.

The trial judge had held that the Rules of Practice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Criminal Division prohibited broadcasting the recording.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rules prohibit broadcasting recordings of proceedings, not exhibits.

Access to exhibits is governed by the open court principle, and trial judges must apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test to determine if broadcasting should be limited.

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the accused had been acquitted.

The media organizations challenged rules and a directive that limited filming, taking photographs, and conducting interviews to predetermined locations in courthouses, and prohibited the broadcasting of official audio recordings of hearings.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while these activities are protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and the measures infringe freedom of expression, the limits are reasonable and justified under s. 1.

The measures advance the pressing and substantial objective of maintaining the fair administration of justice by ensuring the serenity of hearings, protecting the privacy of litigants, and reducing stress on witnesses.

The appellant, a US-based distributor of the patented medicine Thalomid, sold the drug to Canadians through the Special Access Programme.

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board requested pricing information, asserting jurisdiction under the Patent Act over medicines 'sold in any market in Canada'.

The appellant argued that under commercial law principles, the sales occurred in the United States.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Board's decision, finding that a purposive interpretation of the Patent Act supported the Board's consumer protection mandate to regulate prices of medicines delivered and dispensed in Canada, regardless of the commercial locus of the sale.