Wilson J.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge misdirected himself on the burden of proof, failed to warn himself about the risks of accepting accomplice evidence, and disregarded relevant evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 4-3 split decision, dismissed the appeal, with the majority substantially agreeing with the majority decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

The appellant sought a declaration of possessory title over disputed land used as a parking area for twenty years.

The land had been continuously leased during that period except for the last eight years.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal that the limitation period against the owner commenced only when the tenancies terminated.

The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' claim to recover possession was not barred by the Limitations Act.

The appellant was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine.

At trial, wiretap evidence was excluded because the police failed to disclose to the authorizing judge that a concurrent income tax investigation was ongoing and that information would be shared with tax authorities.

The trial judge acquitted the appellant, but the Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the existence of the tax investigation was irrelevant to the validity of the wiretap authorizations for the drug investigation.

The appellants were inmates placed in administrative segregation following an alleged hostage-taking incident.

The Segregation Review Board recommended their release into the general prison population, but the Director refused to follow the recommendation without informing the appellants of his reasons or giving them an opportunity to be heard.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial superior court had jurisdiction to issue certiorari in aid of habeas corpus to review the confinement.

The Court further held that the Director breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to afford the appellants a hearing, rendering their continued segregation unlawful.

The appellant was acquitted at trial on charges of rape and robbery.

The Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge misdirected the jury by applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to individual items of evidence rather than the totality of the evidence.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal's conclusion and order for a new trial.

Following the Supreme Court's opinion declaring Manitoba's unilingual statutes constitutionally invalid, a special hearing was held to determine the minimum period necessary for their translation, re-enactment, printing, and publishing.

The Court issued a consent order giving effect to Manitoba's commitment to publish its laws in a bilingual, parallel column format.

The period of temporary validity for the laws of Manitoba was extended to December 31, 1988, for consolidated statutes, regulations, and rules of court, and to December 31, 1990, for all other laws.

The appellant attempted to repossess his vehicles while armed with a rifle, which he loaded and pointed at the victim.

He was convicted of attempted armed robbery, using a firearm while attempting to commit an indictable offence, possession of a weapon, and pointing a firearm.

The trial judge stayed the possession charge but entered convictions on the others.

On appeal, the appellant argued the multiple convictions violated the common law Kienapple principle and sections 7 and 11(h) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Kienapple principle did not prevent convictions for both armed robbery and using a firearm, as the latter requires the additional element of 'use'.

The Court also found no breach of fundamental justice under the Charter.

However, the Court quashed the conviction for pointing a firearm, finding that it offended the Kienapple principle when combined with the conviction for using a firearm.

The wife applied for a division of matrimonial assets but died before the application was heard.

In her will, she disinherited her husband and son.

Her executrix continued the application.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal ordered an unequal distribution in favour of the husband, citing the wife's death and will as extraordinary circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the death of a spouse and the contents of their will are not relevant factors to justify departing from the presumption of equal distribution under the Matrimonial Property Act.

The Attorney General of Quebec appealed a decision declaring provisions of the Act respecting municipal taxation unconstitutional.

The impugned provisions created a new system of school financing based on government grants, making taxation a complementary method subject to a referendum requirement for amounts exceeding a certain limit.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions prejudicially affected the rights and privileges respecting denominational schools guaranteed by section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Specifically, the legislation failed to ensure proportional distribution of grants and subjected the taxing power of denominational school boards to the approval of electors outside their districts.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisions were declared ultra vires.

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council of British Columbia referred a constitutional question to the British Columbia Court of Appeal regarding the ownership of the seabed and subsoil covered by the waters between mainland British Columbia and Vancouver Island (including the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Strait of Georgia, Johnstone Strait, and Queen Charlotte Strait).

The Court of Appeal held that the lands were the property of the Province.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the 1866 Imperial Act uniting the colonies of Vancouver Island and British Columbia defined the western boundary as the Pacific Ocean and the southern boundary as the territories of the United States, which historically included the waters and submerged lands in question.

Therefore, the seabed was part of the Colony of British Columbia when it entered Confederation in 1871 and remains the property of the Province.

The respondent, a supplier of lightweight aggregate, sued the appellants for the tort of conspiracy to injure after the appellants ceased using its product.

The appellants had previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to lessen competition in the concrete market contrary to the Combines Investigation Act.

The trial judge and Court of Appeal found for the respondent, holding that the appellants' unlawful conduct eliminated the respondent as a competitor, even without a specific intent to injure it.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the tort of conspiracy requires either a predominant purpose to injure the plaintiff, or unlawful conduct directed at the plaintiff where injury is likely.

The Court found no such intent or directed conduct here, and concluded the respondent's business failure was caused by market forces rather than the appellants' conspiracy.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that allowed the respondent to amend his writ of summons and declaration to substitute a company name for his own, even though the prescription period had expired.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the Court of Appeal that the amendment was not contrary to the ends of justice.

The appellants appealed decisions regarding the enforcement of non-criminal federal statutes, specifically the Fisheries Act and the Narcotic Control Act.

The issues concerned whether a provincial Attorney General or any other person is entitled to lay an information charging a violation, and whether the provincial Attorney General is entitled to prosecute.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding no constitutional question and agreeing with the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's conclusions on statutory construction.