Suzanne Côté

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.

In a negligence appeal concerning injuries suffered after minors stole an unlocked vehicle from a commercial garage, the Court addressed whether the garage owner owed a duty of care to the injured passenger.

The majority held that while theft risk was foreseeable, the record did not establish reasonable foreseeability of personal injury from unsafe operation of the stolen vehicle in the specific circumstances.

Applying Anns/Cooper, the majority found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the claim against the garage owner.

The dissent would have upheld the existing duty category for foreseeable physical injury and maintained liability findings.

This constitutional appeal concerned amendments to a provincial pay equity regime addressing systemic wage discrimination affecting predominantly female job classes.

The court held that provisions delaying and limiting compensation adjustments until periodic audit postings, and restricting retroactive adjustments before posting, infringed equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter.

The majority found the scheme effectively tolerated periods of uncompensated inequity and was not justified under section 1.

The cross-appeal challenging repeal provisions failed for lack of proof of unconstitutionality.

On a constitutional appeal concerning Quebec pay equity legislation, the appellants challenged a six-year delay in access to pay equity adjustments for predominantly female workplaces without male comparators under s. 38 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Court split on whether the delay infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter, with one set of reasons finding an infringement and another finding no discriminatory distinction or impact.

A majority result nonetheless upheld the provision because the appeal failed overall, and the challenged section remained valid.

The reasons address substantive equality, comparator methodology, and whether implementation delay in a complex remedial regime can be justified under s. 1.

This appeal addressed habitual residence under Article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after a parent retained children in Canada beyond a time-limited consent period.

The Court adopted a hybrid, multi-factor approach that evaluates all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to parental intent and the child's links to each state.

The Court also endorsed a non-technical approach to Article 13(2), requiring proof of sufficient maturity and a genuine objection before discretion is exercised.

Although the matter was moot, the appeal was resolved to clarify national law and emphasize expeditious handling of return proceedings.

Constitutional appeal concerning whether a provincial liquor-control provision limiting possession of non-provincially sourced alcohol violated s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court held that s. 121 bars laws that in essence and primary purpose restrict interprovincial trade like tariffs, but does not invalidate laws whose trade impacts are incidental to broader regulatory objectives.

It also held that lower courts cannot depart from binding precedent absent genuinely transformative legal developments or new social and legislative facts.

Applying that framework, the impugned provision's main purpose was provincial control of liquor distribution and use, not trade restriction.

The appeal was allowed and the provision was upheld.

Two accused were convicted at trial of second degree murder in the death of a child and the provincial appellate court substituted first degree murder convictions under the unlawful confinement provision.

The Court confirmed that an appeal as of right after a substituted guilty verdict is limited to legal questions tied to that substituted verdict, while challenges to the affirmed lesser convictions require leave.

It also confirmed the provincial appellate court had jurisdiction over the Crown appeals from acquittals on first degree murder and upheld the substituted first degree murder verdicts.

The Court held that unlawful confinement was established in the parent-child context and that confinement and murder formed part of the same transaction.

The Court considered whether accepting a benefit to use government contacts to promote private sales to First Nations constituted influence peddling connected to government business under s. 121(1)(d)(i) of the Criminal Code.

A majority held the phrase should be interpreted broadly and includes matters that could be facilitated by government given its mandate.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent that would have restored the acquittal.

The accused appealed a conviction for sexual interference, arguing that the trial reasons failed to resolve a key inconsistency in the complainant's evidence and did not adequately explain credibility findings.

A majority of the Court adopted the majority appellate reasons and held that the trial reasons were responsive to the live issues and parties' core arguments.

The appeal was dismissed, with one judge dissenting and favouring allowing the appeal.

In a civil procedure appeal, the appellants challenged orders permitting amendment of a statement of claim through a representation order after expiry of a limitation period.

The central issue was whether the order improperly added parties or merely corrected the naming of the legal entity represented by previously named individuals.

A majority held the request was properly treated as correction of a misnamed party, with members having notice before the limitation deadline and no demonstrated prejudice after extensive participation in the litigation.

The appeal was dismissed, with one dissenting judge who would have allowed it.

The accused appealed a sexual assault conviction, alleging unreasonable verdict and misapprehension of evidence.

The Court adopted the majority appellate reasons and held that the trial judge had properly assessed the evidentiary record.

The conviction was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

The appeal addressed whether a trustee under a labour and material payment bond must disclose the bond’s existence to potential beneficiaries.

A majority held that where non-disclosure would unreasonably disadvantage a beneficiary, fiduciary duties require reasonable notice steps.

Because the contractor did nothing to alert subcontractors in circumstances where such bonds were uncommon, it breached trust obligations, and the case was remitted for damages quantification.

The Court held that asking a detainee whether they wished to say anything after invoking counsel breached the duty to hold off.

A majority found the breach serious enough to exclude the resulting statement and ordered a new trial.

The accused appealed as of right after a provincial appellate court set aside his acquittals on sexual offence charges and ordered a new trial.

The Court held that the trial judge committed an error of law by assessing credibility through an impermissible stereotype about how a sexual assault complainant should behave, relying on the complainant’s lack of avoidance of the accused.

Adopting the majority appellate reasons, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the new trial order.

The appellant challenged an order granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring removal of identifying information about a young victim after a publication ban.

The Court held that for mandatory interlocutory injunctions, the first step requires a strong prima facie case, not merely a serious issue.

Because the Crown sought the injunction within a criminal contempt proceeding, it had to show a strong prima facie case of criminal contempt and failed to meet that burden.

The trial judge applied the correct framework, so appellate intervention was not warranted.

The appeal concerned a specific claim for compensation based on historic pre-emption of Indigenous village lands and alleged Crown breaches before and after Confederation.

The Court held that reasonableness review applied to the Tribunal’s validity decision and restored findings that fiduciary obligations were breached in relation to the village lands.

The majority concluded the Tribunal reasonably found both pre-Confederation and post-Confederation fiduciary breaches and reasonably interpreted the extended meaning of the Crown for statutory responsibility.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s validity decision was restored, with compensation issues left to the compensation stage.

The Court considered whether Quebec’s workplace injury regime must be interpreted and applied with the employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate disabled workers under the provincial charter.

It held that workers disabled by workplace injury are entitled to accommodation protections when rights to return to work and suitable employment are assessed.

The appeal was dismissed and the matter was remitted to the Administrative Labour Tribunal for reconsideration with accommodation obligations in view.

The Court reviewed whether the transportation regulator reasonably dismissed a discrimination complaint for lack of standing.

The majority held the regulator applied an unduly rigid approach that effectively barred public interest complaints and therefore acted unreasonably.

The appeal was allowed in part and the matter was returned for full reconsideration, including whether to hear the complaint on a proper exercise of discretion.

A dissent would have upheld the regulator’s gatekeeping approach and restored its dismissal.

On a criminal appeal, the Court considered whether intent to avoid detection for possession of a stolen vehicle could negate the mens rea for failing to stop at the scene of an accident under s. 252(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued ineffective assistance tied to trial admissions on the offence elements.

The Court held that fleeing to avoid arrest as the driver of a stolen vehicle remained sufficiently connected to liability arising from care, charge, or control of the vehicle in the accident.

This did not amount to evidence to the contrary and did not establish a miscarriage of justice.

The conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Criminal Code dangerous offender provisions, arguing overbreadth under s. 7 and gross disproportionality under s. 12 of the Charter.

The majority held s. 753(1) permits considering future treatment prospects at designation and that s. 753(4.1) does not create an unconstitutional presumption of indeterminate detention.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld both provisions as constitutional, with a partial dissent that would have struck down s. 753(4.1) and ordered a new sentencing hearing.