SCC 2018

Appeal from a labour arbitration ruling concerning dismissals of legislative security guards and claimed parliamentary privilege over employee management and exclusion of strangers.

The majority held the claimed immunity from external labour review was not shown to be necessary to the legislature’s constitutional functions, so the grievances could proceed.

A concurring set of reasons found the governing provincial statute dispositive because the legislature had subjected employee management to that regime absent a derogation.

The dissent would have found privilege established and would have barred arbitral jurisdiction.

The Court allowed the appeal and held that an Internet service provider may recover reasonable costs required to comply with a Norwich order, but not costs tied to obligations already imposed by the statutory notice and notice regime under ss. 41.25 and 41.26 of the Copyright Act.

Because the record did not permit a proper allocation between recoverable and non-recoverable work, the matter was remitted to the motion judge to determine the reasonable quantum, with Rogers permitted to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court allowed multiple appeals from pre-trial and appellate orders that had permitted accused former police officers to discuss informer-privileged information with defence counsel.

It held the declaratory order was criminal in nature, that objections and appeal routes under sections 37 and 37.1 of the Canada Evidence Act were available, and that informer privilege could not be pierced absent a successful innocence-at-stake application.

The appellant province sought to block production of anonymized health care databases in aggregate tobacco cost-recovery litigation under provincial legislation.

The Court held that the statutory non-compellability provision turns on the nature of the records, not on relevance to the claim, and that aggregated databases remained records or documents of particular individual insured persons or documents relating to provision of health care benefits.

The Court further rejected interpreting "particular individual insured persons" as limited to identifiable persons, finding that approach inconsistent with the statute's text and scheme.

Trial-fairness concerns did not justify departing from the statutory language, especially given existing mechanisms for expert-reliance disclosure and statistically meaningful sample discovery.

The appeal was allowed and the production order was set aside.

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment dismissing the action to annul municipal by-laws as untimely and prescribed.

It held that challenges alleging abusive zoning must be brought within a reasonable time, and that the 10-year prescriptive period had expired.

The appeal concerned sentence fitness for refusing to provide a breath sample after an accident causing death, where the offender was found not impaired and had acted on incorrect state-provided legal advice.

The Court held that sentencing for this refusal offence must remain proportionate to the offence itself and cannot punish uncharged driving offences.

It confirmed that collateral consequences, including vigilante violence, may be considered but with restrained weight, and that mistake of law may mitigate where it genuinely reduces moral blameworthiness.

The custodial term imposed on appeal was set aside and replaced with time served, while the driving prohibition remained in force.

In an appeal from judicial review proceedings, the appellants challenged a law society decision refusing accreditation to a proposed law school because of a mandatory covenant restricting sexual intimacy to marriage between a man and a woman.

The majority held that the regulator had statutory authority to consider the covenant’s impact on equal access, diversity in the profession, and potential harm to LGBTQ prospective students.

Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the Court found the decision proportionately balanced freedom of religion with statutory public-interest objectives and was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons and a dissent that would have allowed the appeal.

On judicial review of a regulator’s refusal to approve a proposed law school with a mandatory religious covenant, the appellate court addressed statutory authority, administrative reasonableness, and constitutional balancing.

The majority held the regulator could consider barrier effects on equal access, diversity, and public confidence when assessing the public interest, and could proceed through its chosen member-vote process.

Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the court found a proportionate balance between limited religious freedom impacts and significant equality-related statutory objectives.

The regulator’s non-approval decision was restored.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld decisions finding that complaints challenging Indian Act registration provisions were bare attacks on legislation, not discrimination in the provision of services under s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal’s dismissal was upheld because legislation itself is not a service under that provision.

A Métis federal inmate challenged correctional authorities’ use of psychological and actuarial risk tools for Indigenous offenders, alleging statutory and Charter breaches.

The Court held that authorities breached their duty under s. 24(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by continuing to rely on the tools without taking reasonable steps to confirm validity for Indigenous persons.

The Court declined to find violations of ss. 7 or 15 of the Charter on the evidentiary record.

Declaratory relief was granted in light of the prolonged and ineffective grievance history, but no broader injunctive remedy was ordered.

The City sought to hold identified rioters solidarily liable for the full loss of specific patrol cars damaged during a hockey riot.

The Court held that solidarity under article 1480 C.C.Q. requires impossibility of identifying who caused the injury and, for joint participation, a common intention, both absent on these facts.

It also held article 1526 C.C.Q. did not apply because the trial judge found distinct identifiable injuries linked to distinct faults rather than one single injury caused by common or contributory faults.

Liability in solidum could not be used to bypass the Civil Code framework for extracontractual solidarity.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent favoring solidary liability for groups that destroyed each vehicle together.

In an Internet defamation dispute, the appellants sought a stay of an Ontario libel action in favour of an Israeli forum.

The Court held that tort situs remains a presumptive connecting factor for jurisdiction simpliciter in online defamation, while requiring robust forum non conveniens review.

The majority found material errors in the forum non conveniens analysis and concluded Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The appeal was allowed and the stay motion was granted.

A lawyer appealed a professional misconduct finding based on in-court incivility during a securities prosecution.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied and accepted the disciplinary framework, but found its application unreasonable on the record.

The Court concluded the allegations were made in good faith with sufficient factual foundation in context.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed an originating application for judicial review of a religious congregation’s disfellowship decision.

It held that judicial review is generally limited to public decision makers, that there is no free-standing procedural fairness claim without an underlying legal right, and that ecclesiastical issues in this dispute were non-justiciable.

The accused sought to withdraw a guilty plea after learning it carried serious immigration consequences.

A majority held that an accused must show a reasonable possibility of subjective prejudice, meaning they would have pleaded differently if informed.

The court found the plea was uninformed but dismissed the appeal because that prejudice was not established.

In a criminal appeal concerning adequacy of reasons, the appellant challenged convictions that included sexual assault.

The court held that, read fairly, the trial judge’s reasons made clear that the alibi evidence was neither credible nor reliable.

The court further held that the reasons were sufficient to explain the reasoning process.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions remained affirmed.

The accused appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge's interventions during cross-examination created unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court held that the interventions raised serious concerns and should not be repeated.

However, the court was not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice was established.

It concluded that a new trial was not warranted and dismissed the appeal.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a workplace safety regulation and an administrative penalty imposed after a fatal forestry incident.

The majority held the regulation was within delegated authority and upheld the tribunal’s interpretation allowing an employer-owner to be penalized under the governing scheme.

Dissenting judges would have found the regulation invalid or the penalty interpretation patently unreasonable.

Two accused appealed convictions for failing to provide the necessaries of life to their son.

The court agreed with the dissenting appellate reasons that the trial judge conflated actus reus and mens rea and inadequately explained marked departure to the jury.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The accused appealed a sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly used prior consistent statements.

A majority held the trial judge only addressed alleged inconsistencies on peripheral matters and made proper use of the statements.

The appeal was dismissed, with one dissent.