Thomas R. Berger

The Court held Yukon breached the Chapter 11 modern treaty land-use planning process by making major final-stage changes not properly proposed earlier and not grounded in changing circumstances.

Yukon’s approval was quashed, and the parties were returned to the s. 11.6.3.2 stage.

The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s approach of resetting the process to an earlier stage and emphasized judicial restraint with robust legality review in modern treaty implementation.

The appellants, representing the Metis people of Manitoba, sought declarations that Canada breached fiduciary obligations and failed to act in accordance with the honour of the Crown in implementing land grant provisions under ss. 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act, 1870.

The majority held that while no fiduciary duty arose, s. 31 constituted a solemn constitutional obligation to the Metis as an Aboriginal people, engaging the honour of the Crown.

The Crown failed to act with diligence in implementing the land grants, exhibiting a persistent pattern of errors and inaction over more than a decade that substantially frustrated the purpose of giving Metis children a head start over incoming settlers.

The claim was not barred by limitations or laches.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allows the government of British Columbia to sue tobacco manufacturers to recover health care costs related to tobacco exposure.

The appellants argued the Act was ultra vires due to extra-territoriality, violated judicial independence, and offended the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that the Act's pith and substance is property and civil rights in the province, it does not interfere with the adjudicative role of the courts, and it does not violate the unwritten constitutional principle of the rule of law.

Trinity Western University (TWU), a private Christian institution, applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) for permission to assume full responsibility for its teacher education program.

The BCCT denied the application, arguing it was contrary to the public interest because TWU's Community Standards, which prohibited 'homosexual behaviour', were discriminatory.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the BCCT had jurisdiction to consider discriminatory practices, its decision was unjustified.

The Court found that the BCCT failed to properly reconcile the equality rights of public school students with the freedom of religion of TWU students.

Absent concrete evidence that training teachers at TWU fosters discrimination in public schools, the freedom to hold religious beliefs must be respected.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the order of mandamus directing the BCCT to approve the program.

The appellant suffered back injuries in two successive motor vehicle accidents.

While recovering, he experienced a disc herniation during a mild stretching exercise.

The trial judge found the accidents contributed 25% to the herniation and awarded 25% of the global damages, which the Court of Appeal upheld.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that apportionment between tortious and non-tortious causes is contrary to tort principles.

Because the accidents materially contributed to the indivisible injury, the defendants were fully liable for the entire loss under the thin skull rule.

The Beaver Band surrendered the mineral rights on its reserve to the Crown in 1940 to lease for its benefit.

In 1945, the Band surrendered the reserve to the Crown to sell or lease.

The Crown subsequently sold the land to the Director of The Veterans' Land Act, inadvertently including the mineral rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown did not breach its fiduciary duty regarding the surrender and sale of the surface rights.

However, the Crown breached its fiduciary duty by transferring the mineral rights and failing to correct the error when it learned of it.

The action was not barred by limitation periods as the running of time was postponed until the Band discovered the facts.

The appellant was attacked by a gang while driving his van and was shot, resulting in severe injuries.

He applied for no-fault benefits under his automobile insurance policy, which covered injuries caused by an accident arising out of the ownership, use, or operation of a vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim, and the lower courts upheld the denial, finding the van was merely the situs of the attack.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, establishing a two-part test of purpose and causal link.

The Court found that the shooting was not random but resulted from an attempt to gain entry to the van, thus satisfying the causal connection requirement.

Two midwives were charged with criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm after a child died in the birth canal during a home birth.

At trial, they were convicted of causing death but acquitted of causing bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, finding a foetus is not a 'person' under the Criminal Code, but substituted a conviction for causing bodily harm despite the Crown not appealing the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the acquittal for causing death, confirming a foetus is not a 'person' under the Code, and overturned the substituted conviction, ruling the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to substitute a conviction without a Crown appeal.

The appellants challenged a municipal zoning by-law that converted agricultural land to residential use, arguing that an alderman who voted on the by-law was disqualified due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The alderman had made public statements indicating he would not change his mind on the rezoning.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a municipal councillor is only disqualified by bias if they have prejudged the matter to the extent of being no longer capable of persuasion.

Finding that the alderman had not closed his mind entirely, the Court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of conspiring to import cocaine.

At trial, he claimed he only pretended to participate in the conspiracy to regain the affections of his former mistress.

During cross-examination, the Crown questioned the appellant on why he had not disclosed this defence to authorities upon his arrest.

The trial judge failed to instruct the jury to ignore these questions and answers, despite an undertaking to do so.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the cross-examination violated the appellant's right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The failure to instruct the jury caused irreparable prejudice that could not be cured by the proviso in section 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed a decision striking out their statement of claim, which sought a declaration that various federal and provincial statutes were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the test for striking out a statement of claim was not met, as the outcome was not 'plain and obvious' or 'beyond doubt'.

The Court found that the issues regarding the interpretation of the Manitoba Act, 1870 and the Constitution Act, 1871 were better determined at trial with a proper factual base, and that the subject matter was justiciable.

The parties divorced after nine years of marriage.

The trial judge awarded the wife a 25 per cent interest in the family assets, which included the husband's business property due to her indirect contribution.

The Court of Appeal reduced her share, holding that the trial judge erred by not comparing each spouse's contribution to each individual asset.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's decision, finding that the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the trial judge's discretion under section 51 of the Family Relations Act, as there was no misdirection or injustice in the trial judgment.