Sean Gaudet

The plaintiff brought a motion to re-open his case during an ongoing civil trial to introduce evidence of a workplace incident that occurred after the plaintiff had closed his case.

The incident involved a training-session comment that was incorrectly processed within the organization as a harassment complaint and entered into a harassment database.

The court considered the applicable test for reopening a case before the trial had concluded and held that the relevant inquiry was whether the proposed evidence was relevant and material.

The court found the evidence could be material to the plaintiff’s damages claim and that admitting it would not cause unfairness because the defendants had not yet closed their case and could respond.

The motion was granted and the testimony from the motion witnesses was permitted to be read into the plaintiff’s case.

In a pair of extradition appeals, the Court held that surrender of Canadian citizens to the United States on terrorism-related charges did not unjustifiably infringe mobility rights under s. 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court reaffirmed that extradition generally constitutes a marginal limitation on the right to remain in Canada and that ministerial balancing under the established multi-factor framework attracts substantial deference.

It rejected arguments that weak foreign jurisdiction or feasible domestic prosecution should be near-dispositive limits on surrender.

The Court also held that procedural fairness did not require the Minister to obtain and disclose prosecutorial assessments about whether to proceed domestically.

The surrender decisions were found reasonable on the record, and both appeals were dismissed.

Public sector unions and individual employees brought constitutional challenges to two federal statutes enacted through omnibus budget legislation: the Expenditure Restraint Act and the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

The applicants moved to sever the combined challenges or, alternatively, amend their applications to retain only the Expenditure Restraint Act challenge and pursue the pay equity challenge later.

The respondent opposed severance, arguing the evidence and pleadings were already intertwined.

The court held that although the Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for severance of an application, leave to amend under Rule 26.01 was appropriate because no non-compensable prejudice would result.

Leave was granted to amend the notices of application to proceed only with the Expenditure Restraint Act challenge, without prejudice to commencing fresh applications challenging the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act.

The appellant filed a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment by the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal substantiated the complaint in part and awarded compensation, including $47,000 for legal costs under the statutory provision allowing compensation for 'any expenses incurred'.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the costs award.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada held that while the Tribunal's decision should be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness, its interpretation of the statute to include legal costs was unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the Tribunal does not have the authority to award legal costs.

The United States sought the appellant's extradition to stand trial on terrorism charges for his alleged role in attempting to purchase weapons for the LTTE.

The appellant appealed his committal order and applied for judicial review of the Minister's surrender order, arguing that the terrorism provisions in the Criminal Code violated his Charter rights to freedom of expression and fundamental justice (overbreadth).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and application, finding that the provisions were not unconstitutionally overbroad, the test for committal was met, and the Minister's surrender decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.

The appellant, sought by the United States on terrorism charges related to the LTTE, appealed his committal for extradition and applied for judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the committal on corresponding Canadian terrorism offences.

The Court also dismissed the judicial review application, holding that the Minister's independent Cotroni assessment and surrender decision were reasonable and did not deny the appellant procedural fairness.

The respondent, an RCMP constable, commenced an action for harassment and Charter breaches against his superiors.

The appellants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing the court should defer to the statutory grievance process in the RCMP Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the grievance process lacked the means to make credibility findings or provide the requested relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the case was exceptional and the statutory regime did not oust the court's jurisdiction.

The appellant posted federal election results from Atlantic Canada on his website before polling stations had closed in other parts of the country, violating s. 329 of the Canada Elections Act.

He challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it infringed his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the publication ban infringes freedom of expression, it is a reasonable limit demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

The majority found that the ban serves the pressing and substantial objective of ensuring informational equality among voters and maintaining public confidence in the electoral system, and that the salutary effects of the brief delay in publication outweigh its deleterious effects.

The appellant, a lesbian woman, sought to conceive a child using semen from a known gay donor.

She challenged the definition of 'assisted conception' in the Processing and Distribution of Semen for Assisted Conception Regulations, which exempted women using semen from a spouse or sexual partner from rigorous screening requirements.

The appellant argued this violated her equality and liberty rights under ss. 15 and 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the exemption was based on health considerations rather than sexual orientation, as women using a spouse's semen are already exposed to any existing risks.

The court also upheld the exclusion criteria for donors over 40 and men who have had sex with men, concluding they were factually based on health risks and not discriminatory.

The appellant, a lesbian, challenged the constitutionality of federal regulations governing semen donation for assisted conception, arguing they discriminated against women using known donors who were not spouses or sexual partners.

Before the application was heard, the appellant successfully self-inseminated and the government amended the regulations, leading the application judge to dismiss the case as moot.

The Court of Appeal upheld the mootness finding and declined to hear the Charter issues as a court of first instance.

However, the Court granted a motion to add another woman in the same situation as a party and remitted her application to the Superior Court for an expedited hearing on the constitutional issues.

The appellant filed an access to information request for copies of weekend sign-in logs for employees of the Department of Finance.

The Minister disclosed the logs but deleted the employees' names, identification numbers, and signatures, claiming they constituted personal information.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the names prima facie constituted personal information, they fell within the exception in s. 3(j) of the Privacy Act because the number of hours spent at the workplace relates to the position or functions of the individual.

The Court ordered the disclosure of the requested information.