Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCC

The appellant generic drug manufacturer sought damages against the federal Crown for losses incurred when Health Canada prohibited the sale of its drug.

The Crown successfully moved for summary judgment in the lower courts on the basis that the appellant was required to first invalidate the prohibition decision via judicial review.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone.

The Court held that section 17 of the Federal Courts Act grants concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown, and nothing in the Act requires a plaintiff to successfully challenge the underlying administrative decision on judicial review before pursuing a tort action.

The respondent, a prison inmate, spent over four years in solitary confinement.

He brought an action for damages in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the federal Crown and a prison warden, alleging arbitrary detention and cruel and unusual punishment contrary to the Charter.

The appellants argued that the claim was a collateral attack on the segregation orders and that the respondent must first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada, applying its concurrent decision in TeleZone, held that the Federal Courts Act does not grant the Federal Court exclusive jurisdiction over such damages claims, and the provincial superior court has jurisdiction to hear the action without prior judicial review.

The respondent, TeleZone Inc., brought an action for damages against the federal Crown in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice after its application for a telecommunications licence was rejected by Industry Canada.

The Attorney General of Canada challenged the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, arguing that based on the Grenier principle, the claim was a collateral attack on the Minister's decision and that TeleZone had to first seek judicial review in the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, overruling Grenier.

The Court held that the Federal Courts Act and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act grant concurrent jurisdiction to provincial superior courts to hear damages claims against the federal Crown, and there is no requirement to first quash the underlying administrative decision via judicial review in the Federal Court.

During a labour dispute, veterinarians employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stopped working, halting meat inspections at Quebec slaughterhouses.

The CFIA subsequently ordered the uninspected meat destroyed.

The slaughterhouse operators sued the veterinarians and their union for damages in the Quebec Superior Court.

The defendants brought recourses in warranty against the CFIA.

The CFIA moved to dismiss, arguing the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because its decision had not been quashed on judicial review by the Federal Court.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the CFIA's appeal, holding that judicial review is not a prerequisite for a civil action for damages against the federal Crown, and that a lawful administrative decision can still constitute a civil fault under Quebec law.

The appellant obtained import permits from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to import wheat.

The permits were revoked while the cargo was en route, and a new permit with different conditions was issued, causing the appellant to incur additional costs.

The appellant brought an action for damages in the Federal Court without first seeking judicial review of the licensing decisions.

The Crown successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis that judicial review was a prerequisite.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its companion decision in TeleZone, holding that the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction over claims for damages against the Crown and that a prior successful judicial review application is not required.

The appellants brought a civil liability action against the succession of a man who murdered his former spouse and their two children before committing suicide.

The trial judge awarded personal damages for solatium doloris but dismissed the successions' claims for compensatory and punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, holding that punitive damages under s. 49 of the Quebec Charter are autonomous and can be awarded even without compensatory damages.

The Court also held that the death of the wrongdoer does not preclude an award of punitive damages, as they serve a denunciatory purpose.

The Court awarded $10,000 in exemplary damages to the victims' successions.

The appellant filed a civil liability action for sexual assault more than 25 years after the alleged assault occurred.

The respondents successfully moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was prescribed, and the Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting judge at the Court of Appeal that the issue of when prescription started to run raised questions of fact that could not be resolved on the face of the record.

The case was remanded to the Quebec Superior Court to assess the evidence.

The appellant newspaper appealed orders compelling its journalist to answer questions that could reveal a confidential source, and a publication ban on reporting settlement negotiations in the Sponsorship Scandal litigation.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while no class-based constitutional privilege exists for journalists, the common law Wigmore framework applies in Quebec civil proceedings to determine journalist-source privilege on a case-by-case basis.

The Court also quashed the publication ban, finding it was improperly issued without notice and failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test, as the media was not bound by the parties' confidentiality undertakings.

The appellant sought recognition in Quebec of an English judgment ordering the Republic of Iraq to pay costs arising from litigation over aircraft seized during the invasion of Kuwait.

Iraq claimed state immunity under the State Immunity Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Act applies to applications for recognition of foreign judgments, Iraq's conduct in controlling the defence of its state-owned airline in the English commercial litigation fell within the commercial activity exception.

The Court allowed the appeal and permitted the application for recognition to proceed.

The insured, a general contractor, was sued for negligence and breach of contract after water damage caused rot and deterioration in several housing complexes it built.

The insured sought a declaration that its insurer owed a duty to defend under its commercial general liability policies.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the insurer owed a duty to defend, finding that the pleadings revealed a possibility of coverage.

The Court clarified that 'property damage' is not limited to third-party property and that defective workmanship can constitute an 'accident' if the resulting damage was neither expected nor intended by the insured.

Furthermore, the 'work performed' exclusions did not clearly and unambiguously exclude the claims, particularly given the involvement of subcontractors.

The respondent was mistakenly identified as a suspect, arrested, strip-searched, and his vehicle was seized.

The trial judge found breaches of his s. 8 Charter rights and awarded damages under s. 24(1).

The Supreme Court of Canada established a four-step framework for awarding Charter damages: (1) proof of breach, (2) functional justification (compensation, vindication, deterrence), (3) absence of countervailing factors, and (4) quantum assessment.

The Court upheld the $5,000 damage award for the strip search but set aside the $100 award for the vehicle seizure, finding a declaration sufficient for the latter.

Media organizations challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory publication ban on bail hearing information under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, arguing it unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the constitutionality of the provision.

The Court found that while the mandatory ban limits freedom of expression, it is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The ban's objectives of safeguarding the right to a fair trial and ensuring expeditious bail hearings are pressing and substantial.

The mandatory nature of the ban is rationally connected to these objectives, minimally impairs freedom of expression given its temporary nature and limited scope, and its salutary effects outweigh its deleterious effects.

The appellant, a Russian corporation, sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award against the respondent, an Alberta corporation, in Alberta.

The application was brought more than three years after the award was rendered.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards permits the application of local limitation periods.

In Alberta, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is subject to the general two-year limitation period under s. 3 of the Limitations Act, not the 10-year period for judgments under s. 11.

Consequently, the appellant's application was time-barred and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants alleged they were physically and sexually abused while residing in a privately operated children's home between 1928 and 1976.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council referred questions to the Court of Appeal regarding whether the Province owed duties to the children.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Province owed no duty of care, non-delegable duty, vicarious liability, or fiduciary duty to the children, as the home was privately operated and the Province had no statutory authority or control over its management.

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 appellants brought a defamation action against the respondent newspaper and reporter over an article concerning a proposed private golf course development and alleged political influence.

At trial, the jury found for the appellants and awarded damages.

The Court of Appeal set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial, recognizing a new defence of responsible journalism.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, formally recognizing the new defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

The Court held that the traditional strict liability regime for defamatory statements of fact failed to adequately protect freedom of expression under the Charter.

The new defence applies where the publication is on a matter of public interest and the publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegations.

A new trial was ordered due to the trial judge's failure to leave this defence to the jury and errors in the fair comment instruction.

The respondent, an Ontario police constable, travelled to New York City after September 11, 2001, to assist with search and rescue efforts.

The appellant newspaper published articles alleging he misrepresented himself to authorities and interfered with rescue operations.

The respondent sued for defamation.

At trial, the appellants pleaded qualified privilege but not the English defence of responsible journalism.

The jury found for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal recognized a new responsible journalism defence but denied the appellants its protection because they had not pleaded it at trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the appellants should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the newly recognized defence of responsible communication on matters of public interest.

The insured engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse and contracted genital herpes, which led to transverse myelitis and resulted in paraplegia.

He claimed compensation under his group accident insurance policy, which covered bodily injuries occasioned solely through external, violent and accidental means.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injury was the result of a disease contracted in the ordinary course of events.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the transmission of a disease through normal sexual intercourse is not an accident within the ordinary meaning of the term, and therefore the resulting paralysis was not covered by the policy.

The respondents were charged with sexual assault based on allegations by three children.

The charges were stayed by the appellant Crown prosecutor, and the children later recanted.

The respondents sued the prosecutor for malicious prosecution.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal found the prosecutor liable, concluding his lack of subjective belief in the probable guilt of the respondents was sufficient to ground a finding of malice.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, holding that malice requires proof of an improper purpose.

A prosecutor's lack of subjective belief in reasonable and probable cause does not equate to malice and does not dispense with the requirement to prove an improper purpose.

The respondent, a bookkeeper, made voluntary cash advances to her employer, a law firm experiencing financial difficulties.

The law firm also provided limited legal services to the respondent.

When the firm went bankrupt, the respondent sued for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, but the Court of Appeal found an ad hoc fiduciary duty based on a power-dependency relationship.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that an ad hoc fiduciary duty requires an undertaking by the fiduciary to act in the best interests of the other party, which was absent here.

The Court also found no breach of duty arising from the limited solicitor-client relationship.