SCC 2015

On a criminal appeal concerning refusal to provide a breath sample, the Court addressed the burden applicable to proving a reasonable excuse under s. 794(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court confirmed that the provision imposes a persuasive burden on the accused to establish an exception, exemption, proviso, excuse, or qualification prescribed by law.

The Court declined to address new issues advanced by interveners.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the conviction in place.

The appellants challenged Criminal Code provisions barring assistance in dying, arguing the absolute prohibition violated section 7 Charter rights of competent adults with grievous and irremediable medical conditions causing intolerable suffering.

The Court held the blanket ban was overbroad relative to Parliament’s objective of protecting vulnerable persons and was not justified under section 1.

It declared section 14 and section 241(b) of no force or effect to the extent they prohibit physician-assisted death for competent, consenting adults meeting the defined criteria.

The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 12 months to allow a legislative response.

The Court also awarded special costs on a full indemnity basis to the appellants, with partial cost responsibility assigned to British Columbia.

This constitutional labour appeal addressed whether a statutory prohibition on designated essential-services employees striking substantially interfered with meaningful collective bargaining under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The Court held that the right to strike is an indispensable component of meaningful collective bargaining, and that the statutory scheme’s unilateral employer designations and lack of a meaningful impasse-resolution substitute rendered the infringement unjustified under s. 1.

The declaration of invalidity concerning the essential-services regime was suspended for one year.

The companion challenge to amendments governing union certification, decertification, and employer communications was dismissed.

The Court allowed the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal and set aside the divestiture order under s. 92 of the Competition Act.

A majority held the merger likely prevented competition substantially, but concluded the efficiencies defence in s. 96 succeeded because proven efficiency gains outweighed proven anti-competitive effects after the Commissioner failed to quantify quantifiable effects.

RCMP members challenged federal wage restraint measures, arguing that rollback of agreed wage increases without prior consultation violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The majority held the Expenditure Restraint Act did not substantially interfere with the existing consultation process and dismissed the appeal, while a dissent found unconstitutional unilateral interference.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the labour relations regime imposed on RCMP members infringed freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

It found the scheme lacked sufficient employee choice and independence for meaningful collective bargaining, and that excluding RCMP members from the statutory federal regime also infringed s. 2(d).

The infringements were not justified under s. 1, and invalidity of the offending statutory exclusion was suspended for 12 months.