W. G. Burke-Robertson

The appellant applied for a re-hearing to vary a previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the Social Service Tax.

The Court granted the application and varied the judgment to include prejudgment interest at the District Registrar's rate from the date of the several remittances to March 15, 1984, and postjudgment interest for the period following March 15, 1984.

The appellant was awarded costs of the re-hearing.

The applicant sought leave to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of workers' compensation legislation that bars private compensation claims.

The applicant was involved in similar pending litigation in another province where her action was stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion to intervene, finding that involvement in a similar case can satisfy the interest requirement, particularly to remedy the unfairness of the opposing provincial Attorney General having an automatic right to intervene.

The Court also found the applicant could provide useful and different submissions by ensuring a full adversarial context.

The appellant, who had successfully appealed his impaired driving conviction to the Supreme Court of Canada based on a Charter breach, sought a rehearing to amend the judgment to award him costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the broad discretion to award costs under the Criminal Code should not be fettered by a general rule that successful accused appellants or those establishing Charter infringements are automatically entitled to costs.

The Court found no oppressive conduct by the Crown to justify such an award.

The appellant was convicted of failing to provide a breath sample.

At sentencing, the Crown sought a greater punishment based on previous convictions, proving them by producing a certified extract of the appellant's driving record.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the certificate was admissible at common law because hearsay evidence is admissible at a sentencing hearing if credible and trustworthy.

The Court also held that the lack of advance notice of the Crown's intention to use the certificate did not violate section 7 of the Charter.