SCC 2013

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal historical guilty-plea convictions entered between 1996 and 2005, after later being found unfit to stand trial because of intellectual disability.

A majority of the provincial appellate court refused the extension.

The Supreme Court held there was no reversible error in that refusal and dismissed the appeal, adopting the majority appellate reasons.

A dissenting justice would have granted the extension and remitted the matter.

Physicians sought to withdraw life support from an incapable patient while the substitute decision-maker refused consent.

The Court held, by majority, that withdrawal of life support in the circumstances constituted treatment under Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, 1996 and therefore required consent under the statutory regime.

The majority concluded that disputes over refusal of consent must be addressed before the Consent and Capacity Board, which may substitute its decision if statutory best-interests criteria are not met.

Dissenting reasons would have resolved the dispute under the common law rather than the statutory board process.

The appeal was dismissed, with dissent.

The appellant challenged a conviction for failing to report a blasting incident that propelled fly-rock into the air and damaged nearby property.

The Court held that the reporting duty under the Environmental Protection Act is triggered where a contaminant is discharged out of the normal course of events and there is or may be an adverse effect, without requiring proof of actual impairment to the natural environment.

It emphasized the statute’s broad remedial purpose and confirmed that each branch of the adverse-effect definition independently engages the duty to notify the regulator.

On the facts, the discharge caused significant property damage and potential serious harm, requiring immediate reporting.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appeal addresses the governing legal test and its application to the record before the appellate court.

The Court clarifies the proper analytical framework, applies it to the disputed issues, and resolves the appeal accordingly.

The reasons emphasize principled interpretation and consistency with established jurisprudence.

The disposition determines the parties' rights on the issues raised in the appeal.

A majority dismissed the appeal and upheld the sniffer-dog search during a traffic stop, finding objectively supported reasonable suspicion under s. 8 and no arbitrary detention under s. 9.

The majority held police training and experience may inform the totality-of-circumstances analysis, while neutral or equivocal factors remain relevant.

The dissent would have found insufficient objective grounds, Charter breaches, and exclusion of the marihuana evidence under s. 24(2).

The appeal concerned the section 8 standard governing warrantless sniffer-dog searches of checked airline luggage and the role of drug-courier profile factors in establishing reasonable suspicion.

The Court held that reasonable suspicion is assessed on the totality of objectively ascertainable circumstances, including inculpatory and exculpatory information, without imposing a duty to investigate every innocent explanation.

It found the trial judge erred by assessing indicators in isolation and by misapprehending reliability evidence concerning the police dog’s performance.

The Court concluded the constellation of factors justified deployment, the sniff search was reasonable, and the positive indication elevated grounds to arrest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant credit union challenged tax reassessments following an amalgamation structured to avoid statutory flow-through of tax attributes.

The Court held the amalgamation met the statutory conditions for a qualifying amalgamation under the Income Tax Act because provincial amalgamation law vested all predecessor property and liabilities in the amalgamated entity by operation of law.

As a result, the appellant could not avoid flow-through treatment for capital cost allowance and preferred rate amount calculations.

Concurring reasons agreed in result based on legal continuity at amalgamation and cautioned against broader holdings on provincial corporate law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

A Canadian citizen imprisoned in the United States challenged provisions of the International Transfer of Offenders Act that allow the Minister to refuse transfer requests.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the statutory scheme, with the majority finding no breach of s. 6(1) mobility rights because there is no constitutional right to serve a foreign sentence in Canada.

Concurring reasons found a s. 6(1) limitation but held it justified under s. 1 based on security and public safety objectives.

The Court emphasized that ministerial discretion in transfer decisions must still be exercised reasonably and with due regard to Charter values.

The appellant did not pursue the reasonableness challenge to the specific refusal decision before the Court.

The appellant regulator challenged judgments holding that pension plan clauses could limit employer funding obligations after partial termination.

During appellate proceedings, the legislature enacted declaratory amendments expressly reversing the interpretation adopted below.

The majority held declaratory legislation applies immediately to pending matters and that the dispute remained pending because substantive rights had been remitted for determination.

It concluded the administrative decision-maker had to apply the new provisions since prior appellate directions no longer reflected good law after legislative intervention.

The appeal was allowed, with dissenting reasons concluding appellate finality and res judicata barred reopening the legal issue.

The appeal addresses the governing legal test and its application to the record before the appellate court.

The Court clarifies the proper analytical framework, applies it to the disputed issues, and resolves the appeal accordingly.

The reasons emphasize principled interpretation and consistency with established jurisprudence.

The disposition determines the parties' rights on the issues raised in the appeal.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the provincial statutory bar in s. 44 of Newfoundland and Labrador’s workers’ compensation statute applied to bar the dependants’ maritime negligence action.

The Court concluded the provincial provision was constitutionally applicable and operative, rejecting both interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy.

The Court held the provincial no-fault compensation regime and the federal maritime cause of action could operate together without conflict.

This appeal addressed whether trial judges may fix rates of remuneration for amici curiae and order provincial payment in criminal proceedings where amici were appointed to preserve orderly process.

The majority held that while superior and statutory courts may appoint amici in exceptional circumstances, inherent or implied jurisdiction does not extend to fixing compensation rates absent constitutional or statutory authority.

The Court emphasized separation of powers and held public-funding allocation decisions belong to the legislative and executive branches.

Dissenting judges would have recognized fee-setting as necessarily incidental to the appointment power to protect judicial process integrity.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellants sought to file French-language exhibits attached to affidavits in constitutional litigation concerning minority-language education rights.

The majority held that British Columbia law required civil court proceedings, including exhibits relied on for their content, to be in English unless impracticable, and that this framework displaced residual inherent jurisdiction to admit untranslated French documents.

The Court further held that the 1731 English statute was received into provincial law and had not been displaced for this issue.

The dissent would have recognized continued inherent jurisdiction absent clear legislative ouster and remitted the matter for discretionary determination.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the appellants.

The appellant challenged an order for a new trial after exclusion of a co-accused’s prior inconsistent Agreed Statement of Facts tendered for its truth in a murder prosecution.

The majority held threshold reliability was not established because available safeguards did not adequately permit testing of truth and accuracy, particularly given curtailed cross-examination following assertions of solicitor-client privilege.

The Court emphasized deference to trial-level reliability determinations absent error in principle and rejected a request for a new trial based on how the prosecution conducted the voir dire.

It concluded the statement’s surrounding circumstances did not provide sufficient substantive reliability where the declarant had incentives to shift blame during plea negotiations.

The appeal was allowed and the acquittal restored, with dissenting reasons favouring a new trial.

The appeal addressed exclusion from refugee protection under art. 1F(a) for alleged complicity in crimes against humanity by a state official.

The Court rejected guilt by association and held that exclusion requires serious reasons for considering the claimant voluntarily made a knowing and significant contribution to the group’s crime or criminal purpose.

It clarified that passive acquiescence or mere rank is insufficient, and that analysis must remain individualized and contextual.

The matter was remitted to a new panel for redetermination under the refined contribution-based test.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the law firm breached the duty of loyalty by accepting a retainer directly adverse to a current client without consent, then breaching duties of commitment and candour by dropping existing retainers and failing to disclose.

The bright line rule against concurrent adverse representation applies to related and unrelated matters, subject to limited scope constraints.

The matter was remitted for redetermination of remedy focused on maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

In a criminal appeal concerning convictions for sexual assault and unlawful touching, the appellant argued that trial reasons were insufficient and that the burden of proof was misapplied.

The Court held that the functional test for sufficiency was met because the reasons, read in context, explained why guilt was found and permitted meaningful appellate review.

The Court also held that the trial judge properly applied reasonable doubt principles and did not impermissibly decide the case by merely choosing between competing accounts.

The appellant’s denial was considered but did not raise a reasonable doubt on the record.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a multi-party civil action concerning alleged paint failure and corrosion losses, the appellant entered into Pierringer Agreements with some defendants and disclosed all non-financial terms but withheld settlement amounts.

The non-settling defendants sought pre-trial disclosure of those amounts.

The Court held settlement privilege protects the content of successful settlement negotiations, including negotiated amounts, absent a demonstrated countervailing public interest that outweighs settlement policy.

The asserted litigation and tactical interests did not establish tangible prejudice sufficient to justify an exception.

The appeal was allowed and confidentiality of settlement amounts was maintained.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a refusal of ministerial relief from inadmissibility under s. 34(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

It held that reasonableness is the applicable standard of review for this discretionary decision and accepted an interpretation of national interest focused mainly on national security and public safety, while not excluding other relevant factors.

The Court found the Minister’s reasons intelligible and justified on the evidentiary record, including sustained contact with an organization found to have engaged in terrorism and credibility concerns.

It further held that procedural fairness was satisfied and any legitimate expectations from published guidelines were met.

The Minister’s decision was allowed to stand.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which set aside the respondent's conviction for possessing marijuana and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and ordered a new trial.

The central issue was whether a drug purchase call intercepted by police on the accused's cell phone constituted admissible evidence or inadmissible hearsay.

The Court held that implied assertions tendered for the truth of their contents are subject to the hearsay rule, just as express assertions are.

On a principled analysis, the single drug purchase call failed to meet the requirements of necessity and reliability, as no effort was made to locate the caller despite having his address, and the call lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.

The appeal was dismissed and a new trial ordered.