Civil Litigation - Defendant - SCC

The appellant Indian band received federal funding under a Comprehensive Funding Arrangement (CFA), which was deposited into an off-reserve bank account.

The respondent creditor sought to garnish these funds to satisfy a consent judgment.

The band argued the funds were exempt from seizure under ss. 89 and 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the funds were not physically situated on a reserve under s. 89, rejecting a notional situs test.

Furthermore, the Court held that the word 'agreement' in s. 90(1)(b) is limited to agreements that flesh out treaty obligations.

Because the band failed to prove the CFA funds were ancillary to a treaty, the funds were not deemed to be situated on a reserve and were subject to garnishment.

The appellant sought to enforce a U.S. consent decree and contempt order against the respondent in Ontario for trademark infringement.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the traditional common law rule should be changed to allow the enforcement of foreign non-monetary judgments in appropriate circumstances, the specific orders in this case were unenforceable.

The Court found the contempt order to be quasi-criminal in nature and the consent decree's extraterritorial application to be unclear, raising concerns about comity and the use of domestic judicial resources.

The Regroupement pour la commercialisation des produits de l'érable inc. is a non-profit corporation whose activities were paralyzed by internal conflicts.

The Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec applied for its dissolution and the designation of a liquidator.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the suppletive scheme for the dissolution of legal persons set out in the Civil Code of Québec applies to a corporation constituted under Part III of the Companies Act when no specific legal scheme is applicable.

The Court upheld the dissolution and the attribution of the assets to the Fédération, but struck out the Court of Appeal's order relating to the payment of extra-judicial fees.

The syndic of the Ordre des pharmaciens began an inquiry into allegations that generic drug manufacturers were providing illegal kickbacks to pharmacists.

The syndic requested documents from a manufacturer under s. 122 of the Professional Code.

The manufacturer refused, arguing the provision only applied to professionals.

The syndic sought and obtained a general law injunction to compel disclosure.

The Court of Appeal reversed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that s. 122 applies to third parties and that a general law injunction is available to enforce the syndic's investigatory powers despite the existence of specific penal remedies in the Code.

The plaintiffs were successful in a personal injury action and were awarded damages and costs.

The trial judge also awarded a risk premium of $192,600 to the plaintiffs' counsel, payable by the defendants, because counsel had carried the litigation for four years without remuneration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the risk premium.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the risk premium, holding that the risk of non-payment to a plaintiff's lawyer is not a relevant factor under Rule 57.01(1) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure when fixing costs payable by an unsuccessful defendant.

A freelance author brought a class proceeding alleging copyright infringement arising from newspaper publishers' republication of articles in electronic databases and CD-ROM archives.

The Court held that databases presenting articles as decontextualized individual works did not reproduce the publishers' collective newspaper work and therefore infringed freelance authors' copyrights absent consent, but that the CD-ROM product sufficiently preserved the linkage to daily editions and was a valid reproduction of the newspaper.

The Court further held that only exclusive licences require writing under the Copyright Act, and that staff writers should not have been included in the class because they had no cause of action unless they had exercised their statutory right to restrain publication.

The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed only with respect to the CD-ROMs.

The respondent was securing the engine cover of his pleasure craft with a bungee cord in preparation for highway transport when the cord slipped and struck the appellant in the eye.

The appellant brought a personal injury action, and the respondent sought to limit his liability under the federal Canada Shipping Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the allegedly negligent acts were not governed by federal maritime law, as securing a boat for highway transport is not integrally connected to navigation.

Therefore, provincial law applied, and the respondent could not claim the benefit of the federal limitation of liability.

The respondent requested access to government documents relating to his prosecution for regulatory offences, which had been quashed or stayed.

The government denied access to many documents, claiming solicitor-client privilege under s. 23 of the Access to Information Act, which was interpreted to include litigation privilege.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that litigation privilege, unlike legal advice privilege, expires with the litigation that gave rise to it, absent closely related proceedings.

Since the penal proceedings had terminated and the respondent's civil action for abuse of process was not closely related, the litigation privilege had expired and the documents were not exempt from disclosure.

The appellants' premises were searched pursuant to an Anton Piller order obtained by the respondents.

During the search, the respondents' solicitors seized electronic documents, some of which were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The respondents' solicitors subsequently accessed and reviewed these privileged documents without the appellants' consent.

The appellants brought a motion to remove the respondents' solicitors of record.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that where lawyers obtain access to relevant solicitor-client confidences during an Anton Piller search, they bear the onus of rebutting the presumption of a resulting risk of prejudice.

The respondents' solicitors failed to discharge this burden and were removed from the record.

The applicants sought a stay of an Alberta Court of Appeal judgment that upheld legislation disqualifying school board employees from serving as school trustees.

The applicants, who were sitting trustees, applied for a stay pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

A single judge of the Supreme Court granted the stay on an exemption basis, allowing the currently sitting trustees to complete their terms or remain in office until the appeal is decided, finding that the RJR-MacDonald test was met and the government consented to the stay to preserve electoral integrity.

The respondent's long-term disability benefits were terminated by her insurer based on video surveillance, despite a lack of medical evidence indicating she could return to work.

After five years of denied benefits, the insurer reinstated them shortly before trial.

The trial judge awarded $20,000 in damages for mental distress but denied punitive damages, finding no bad faith.

The Court of Appeal upheld the mental distress award and added $100,000 in punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the insurer's appeal in part, setting aside the punitive damages but upholding the mental distress award.

The Court held that damages for mental distress for breach of contract are recoverable under the Hadley v. Baxendale principle if they were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties, which is the case for disability insurance contracts.

The appellant religious order operated a residential school and held a claims-made comprehensive general liability policy.

During the policy period, the appellant became aware of allegations of abuse at the school and notified the insurer of potential future claims.

After the policy expired, numerous former students brought actions.

The insurer denied a duty to defend, arguing the claims were not made during the policy period.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the policy was unambiguously a claims-made policy.

Because a 'claim' requires the communication of an intention to hold the insured responsible for damages, and no such intention was communicated by the subsequent plaintiffs during the policy period, the insurer had no duty to defend those actions.

A unionized employee of Concordia University applied for authorization to institute a class action against the university to contest decisions made regarding the administration and use of the pension fund.

The vast majority of the plan's members were unionized employees covered by collective agreements that referred to the pension plan.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding that a grievance arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal set aside that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Superior Court's decision, holding that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators and that the class action procedure could not alter the jurisdiction of courts and tribunals or bypass the representation mechanisms established under Quebec labour law.

The appellants were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver who had just left a BYOB house party hosted by the respondents.

The appellants sued the social hosts, arguing they owed a duty of care to third-party users of the highway.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that social hosts do not owe a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by an intoxicated guest's conduct, unless the host's conduct implicates them in the creation or exacerbation of the risk.

The Court found that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable and that there was no positive duty to act.

The appellant, a university student, submitted a term paper with an unfootnoted appendix containing a first-person account of child abuse.

Her professor suspected the account was autobiographical and reported it to the Director of the School of Social Work, who forwarded the report to Child Protection Services without seeking an explanation from the student.

The student was placed on the Child Abuse Registry, destroying her career prospects.

A jury found the university and professors negligent and awarded $839,400 in damages.

The Court of Appeal set aside the award, finding the action barred by the Child Welfare Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the jury's verdict, holding that the professors lacked reasonable cause to make the report and thus were not protected by the statute.

The parties were involved in a motor vehicle accident in California.

The appellant brought an action in Alberta after the one-year California limitation period had expired, but within the two-year Alberta limitation period.

The appellant argued that s. 12 of the Alberta Limitations Act applied the Alberta limitation period to the exclusion of the California one.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the substantive law of California, including its limitations law, governed the action.

Section 12 does not revive an action that is already time-barred by the substantive law of the place where the tort occurred.

The appellant obtained student loans under the Quebec Act respecting financial assistance for students.

His loan certificate provided for an interest exemption period after completing his studies.

Subsequent legislative amendments reduced and then eliminated this exemption period.

The financial institution charged the appellant interest based on the new legislation.

The appellant brought a class action against the government.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the appellant had a vested right to the interest exemption period specified in his contract, and the legislative amendments did not clearly indicate an intention to interfere with vested rights or apply retroactively to existing contracts.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellants, former employees of Stelco in Quebec, sought early retirement benefits under Stelco's pension plan after plant closures.

The plan was governed by Ontario law.

Ontario's Superintendent of Pensions ordered a partial wind up and approved a report granting early retirement benefits only to Ontario employees, while Quebec employees received deferred pensions under Quebec law.

The appellants did not contest this decision in Ontario but sued in Quebec based on their employment contracts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the action was an impermissible collateral attack on the Superintendent's final decision, barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and that the Quebec courts should decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens.

The appellant attended a residential school run by the respondent Order.

He was sexually assaulted by a lay employee who worked as a baker and maintenance man.

The trial judge found the Order vicariously liable based on the operational characteristics of the school.

The Court of Appeal set aside the decision, finding insufficient connection between the employee's duties and the wrongful acts.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that vicarious liability requires a strong connection between the employer-created risk and the wrongful act, which was not established given the employee's limited duties and lack of authority over the students.

The applicants brought motions seeking an order to amend a previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada or for a re-hearing of the appeal to clarify the disposition.

The Court dismissed the motions, finding they did not meet the criteria under Rule 81(1)(a) for accidental slips or omissions, nor the criteria under Rule 76 for exceptional cases involving a failure of justice.

The Court held that its previous judgment clearly expressed that the matter must be remitted to the Government and National Assembly for reconsideration.