W. Ian C. Binnie

Media appellants challenged the federal election provision prohibiting the broadcasting, publication, or dissemination of new opinion survey results during the final three days of an election campaign.

The majority held that the ban infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and was not justified under s. 1 because the measure was overbroad, underinclusive, and failed minimal impairment.

The Court accepted that guarding against the possible influence of inaccurate late polls was a pressing and substantial objective, but found the evidentiary basis for broad deference insufficient and emphasized the central constitutional value of political expression.

The appeal was allowed and the provision was declared of no force or effect.

The appellant challenged federal jurisdiction over proposed natural gas gathering pipeline and processing plant expansions in British Columbia, arguing the facilities remained provincial works despite their connection to an interprovincial transmission pipeline.

The majority held that the facilities, together with the existing gathering, processing, and transmission system, formed a single federal transportation undertaking under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 because they were functionally integrated and subject to common management, control and direction.

The Court further held that s. 92A did not derogate from Parliament’s pre-existing jurisdiction over interprovincial transportation undertakings.

It also concluded that the processing plants fell within the definition of “pipeline” in s. 2 of the National Energy Board Act.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent holding the facilities retained their distinct provincial character.

The plaintiffs sought damages for economic loss and property damage after a fire broke out on an oil drilling rig.

The fire was caused by arcing in a heat trace system that ignited inflammable Thermaclad wrap.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the manufacturer, Raychem, breached its duty to warn the rig owner of the product's inflammability and could not rely on the learned intermediary defence.

However, the builder, SJSL, was shielded from liability by an exclusion clause in its contract with the owner.

The Court declined to allow the rig's lessees to recover contractual relational economic loss due to policy concerns over indeterminate liability.

Finally, the Court abolished the common law maritime rule that contributory negligence acts as a complete bar to recovery, allowing the rig owner to recover 40% of its damages despite being 60% at fault.

The appellants faced citizenship revocation proceedings for allegedly concealing their involvement in WWII atrocities.

Due to delays in the Federal Court Trial Division, a senior Department of Justice official met privately with the Chief Justice of the Federal Court to express concern.

The Chief Justice then spoke to the Associate Chief Justice handling the cases, who subsequently expedited the schedule.

The appellants successfully moved for a stay of proceedings on the basis that this ex parte communication compromised judicial independence.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the stay.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding that while the appearance of judicial independence was significantly compromised, a stay of proceedings was not the appropriate remedy.

The Court directed that the cases proceed before a different judge, balancing the affront to judicial independence against society's pressing interest in seeing alleged war criminals brought to justice.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal that affirmed an order granting mandamus to compel the Minister of National Health and Welfare to issue a notice of compliance respecting a generic version of a drug.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal substantially for the reasons of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The appeal concerned a media challenge to a publication ban obtained in criminal proceedings to stop the broadcast of a fictional television mini-series said to risk prejudicing pending jury trials involving allegations of abuse in religious institutions.

The Court held that discretionary publication bans must be assessed in accordance with Charter values and reformulated the common law test to require necessity, the absence of reasonably available alternative measures, and proportional balancing between trial fairness and freedom of expression.

The Court also addressed the proper procedural routes for third-party challenges to publication bans imposed by provincial and superior court judges.

Applying the new framework, the Court concluded the ban was overbroad and unjustified because reasonable alternatives were available.

The appeal was allowed and the publication ban order was set aside.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding the calculation of interest on non-mortgage loans.

The core issue was the interpretation of the loan contract and section 4 of the Interest Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing substantially with the reasons of the Court of Appeal.