Bibliography of Hon. Gérard V. La Forest

About the Bibliography

On October 8, 1992, the UNB Law Library was renamed in honour of the Honourable Gérard V. La Forest, a distinguished jurist, legal academic, and public servant. For the occasion, C. Anne Crocker, Head Law Librarian from 1976–2006 (now Librarian Emerita) compiled the contents of this bibliography.

An international symposium, Gérard V. La Forest at the Supreme Court of Canada, 1985–1997, was held in October of 1998 at UNB Fredericton. For that symposium, the bibliography was expanded to include entries for Mr. Justice La Forest's major decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada and the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. Brent Timmons, a former UNB law student, was responsible for adding the references to this jurisprudence and for the brief annotations accompanying the decisions.

In 2008, Melinda Renner, retired Reference/Public Services Librarian, added citations to Mr. Justice La Forest's publications from 1998 through 2007.

In 2022, Nikki Tanner, Reference/Instruction Librarian, added links to the citations.

Links to the UNB Libraries catalogue or freely available websites have been provided where possible. Check with a librarian at your local public, university, or other library for materials not available outside of the UNB community. Because some users of this bibliography may not be familiar with legal abbreviations, the full title of each law journal is provided where applicable.

Acknowledgments

We wish to express thanks to the following individuals who assisted the compiler in preparing this bibliography: Matt Hiltz, former UNB law student, for scanning and converting portions of the bibliography that were never previously available electronically; Heather Doherty, Law Library Assistant, for her excellent proofreading; and Brent Timmons, former UNB law student, for preparing the annotations for the listed judgments.

 

Bibliography

 

Books & Reports

 

 

Articles, Papers, Presentations & Notes

 

 

Book Reviews

 

 

Jurisprudence

 

JUDGMENTS FROM THE NEW BRUNSWICK COURT OF APPEAL (1981–1985)

 

CONTRACTS

  • Storey and Storey v Hallmark Pool (1983), 45 NBR (2d) 181, 118 APR 181 (CA).
    • (Contracts; Collateral Contracts; Formation of Contracts)
    • A judgment for the court: the defendant is liable for the deterioration of the plaintiff's pool. The liability arises from guarantees issued in the defendant's advertisements, not from a formal arrangement. The defendant offered the guarantee in its advertisements, and the plaintiffs accepted by entering into the formal contract with the defendant's agent. The defendant cannot rely on limiting conditions for the guarantee because there was no reasonable notice given of their existence.
  • Buckley Insurance Ltd v Guardian Insurance of Canada (1983), 45 NBR (2d) 66, 118 APR 66 (CA).
    • (Contracts; Insurance; Damages)
    • A judgment for the court: the respondent was in breach of its contract with the plaintiff, and damages should be awarded accordingly.
  • Thomas Equipment Ltd v Sperry Rand Canada Ltd (1982), 40 NBR (2d) 271, 135 DLR (3d) 197 (CA).
    • (Contracts; Oral Representations; Limitation Clauses)
    • A concurring judgment: on the true construction of the contract, the defendants had an obligation to the plaintiff that the limitation clause does not cover, and that obligation was not met. The defendants are, therefore, fully liable for failing to meet that obligation.
  • NB Tel v John Maryon International Ltd (1982), 43 NBR (2d) 469, 141 DLR (3d) 193 (CA).
    • (Contracts; Remedies for a Breach and the Availability of a Tort Action)
    • A judgment for the court: when a party to a contract negligently performs, the other party may bring an action in tort and contract concurrently, unless the tort action is precluded specifically by the contract.
  • Distributeur Norbec Enrg and Gagnon v Daigle et Fils Ltee (1984), 57 NBR (2d) 269, 148 APR 269 (CA).
    • (Contracts)
    • A judgment for the majority: the owners could not recover rent for the year, since the movers could not have been leased anyway.

 

CRIMINAL LAW

  • R v Morrison (1982), 42 NBR (2d) 271, 110 APR 271 (CA).
    • (Criminal Law; Evidence; Hearsay)
    • A majority judgment ordering a new trial because the trial judge erred in law as to what constituted reasonable notice.
  • R v Davidson (1984), 52 NBR (2d) 338, 137 APR 338 (CA).
    • (Criminal Law; Food and Drugs)
    • A judgment for the majority reducing a doctor's conviction for trafficking drugs from three months to one month.
  • R v Stewart (1982), 136 DLR (3d) 107, 66 CCC (2d) 481 (NBCA).
    • (Criminal Law; Police Powers of Arrest)
    • A judgment for the court: the arrest of the accused was made without authority because the arresting officer was outside the officer's territorial jurisdiction.
  • R v Clements (1985), 58 NBR (2d) 147, 151 APR 147 (CA).
    • (Criminal Law; Practice)
    • A majority judgment dismissing the defendant's appeal of his conviction: the defendant had claimed the conviction could not be reasonably supported by the evidence.
  • R v Stevens (1984), 53 NBR (2d) 263, 1984 CanLII 4197 (CA).
    • (Criminal Law; Sentencing)
    • A judgment for the court substituting a conviction for assault, replacing a sentence for robbery by assault with intent to steal since there was no evidence of the accused's intent to steal, and sentencing the appellant to five years imprisonment.
  • R v Picard (1982), 43 NBR (2d) 66, 113 APR 66 (CA).
    • (Criminal Law; Sentencing)
    • A majority judgment: the defendant's sentence for robbery is increased from four to twelve months, plus one year probation.
  • R v Levesque (1982), 42 NBR (2d) 506, 110 APR 506 (CA).
    • (Criminal Law; Sentencing)
    • A majority judgment allowing the appeal and increasing the defendant's sentence for indecent assault.

 

FAMILY LAW

  • Re AP; Shea v MacDonald (1983), 45 NBR (2d) 379, 1983 CanLII 3978 (CA).
    • (Family Law; Adoption; Discretionary Orders and Appellate Courts)
    • A judgment for the court: if a trial judge exercises their discretionary powers reasonably, an appellate court should not interfere with that decision even though it may have come to a different decision. The trial judge in the present case exercised his discretion on a proper basis.
  • McLellan v McLellan (1983), 50 NBR (2d) 432, 1983 CanLII 4029 (CA).
    • (Family Law; Divorce; Marital Property)
    • A judgment for the court holding that the court had no jurisdiction to divide non-marital property under the Marital Property Act. "The trial judge erred in making a division of property under section 8" but did not err in the division under section 42 of the Act.
  • McEvoy v McEvoy (1984), 58 NBR (2d) 174, 151 APR 174 (CA).
    • (Family Law; Divorce)
    • A judgment for the court allowing the appeal in part: the trial judge did not commit "any reviewable error in his findings concerning the divorce action or the maintenance issue." However, the trial judge did err "in finding that the wife was entitled to only twenty-five percent of one-half of the value of the matrimonial home."
  • Toussaint v Toussaint (1982), 40 NBR (2d) 541, 105 APR 541 (CA).
    • (Family Law; Maintenance; Unconscionability)
    • A judgment for the court affirming the maintenance awarded at trial to the wife and son: a previous agreement was set aside on the grounds of unconscionability.
  • LeBouthillier v LeBouthillier (1982), 39 NBR (2d) 20, 103 APR 20 (CA).
    • (Family Law; Marital Property)
    • A concurring judgment reassessing the value of the marital home and awarding the wife an equal share of the property. Such issues are usually sent back to be decided at trial. There is sufficient evidence before the court to decide the matter.

 

LABOUR LAW

  • New Brunswick v Canadian Union of Public Employees et al (1984), 55 NBR (2d) 149, 1984 CanLII 4096 (CA).
    • (Labour Law; Grievances)
    • A judgment for the court quashing the adjudicator's decision because, under section 92(1)(b) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, adjudication is available only for disciplinary action resulting in discharge. The adjudicator did not, therefore, have jurisdiction over written reprimands.
  • St Anne-Nackawic Pulp & Paper Ltd v Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219 (1982), 44 NBR (2d) 10, 142 DLR (3d) 678 (CA).
    • (Labour Law; Collective Agreements)
    • A judgment for the court: when parties to a collective agreement include provisions to resolve disputes through arbitration in the agreement, one of the parties cannot then avoid arbitration by bringing a civil action against the other.
  • Modern Warehousing Ltd v Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, Local 650 (1984), 55 NBR (2d) 39, 1984 CanLII 4100 (CA).
    • (Labour Law; Judicial Review; Unions)
    • A judgment for the court: "The approach taken by the [Industrial Relations] Board may have comprised certain procedural and administrative flaws in one of the steps required to carry out its task, but the task was one that was clearly within its jurisdiction. "The Board's jurisdiction supported by a strong privative clause ousting the jurisdiction of the courts to interfere with its decisions."
  • Campbellton, City of v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 76 (1983), 49 NBR (2d) 271, 1983 CanLII 3815 (CA).
    • (Labour Law)
    • A judgment for the court: once notice to bargain was given to the union, the collective agreement was terminated and the "bridge provision" did not operate.
  • Petts and CUPE, Local 1251 v New Brunswick (1984), 58 NBR (2d) 68, 151 APR 68 (CA).
    • (Labour Law; Jurisdiction)
    • A judgment for the court: the Civil Service Act, not the collective agreement, governed the dismissal; therefore, the adjudicator's original award was correct.
  • Jardine Transport Ltd v Workers' Compensation Board (1984), 56 NBR (2d) 387, 1984 CanLII 4319 (CA).
    • (Labour Law; Workers Compensation)
    • A judgment for the court dismissing the appeal: under section 70(3) of the Workers' Compensation Act, the operators were deemed employees of the company, and demerit assessments should be calculated on the company's payroll.
  • Chippin Bros Ltd v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 649 (1985), 58 NBR (2d) 399, 151 APR 399 (CA).
    • (Labour Law; Arbitration)
    • A majority judgment allowing the appeal: the Board of Arbitration did not err by implying in the collective agreement the tests of completeness and reasonableness.
  • Irving Oil Ltd, Refinery Division v Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 691 (1983), 47 NBR (2d) 205, 148 DLR (3d) 398 (CA).
    • (Labour Law)
    • A judgment for the court: the court has jurisdiction over the action by the plaintiff for conspiracy to commit nuisance, trespass, and negligence because the actions, if proved, would constitute wrongs independent of the collective agreement. These actions are not arbitrable.
  • New Brunswick Liquor Corporation v CUPE Local 963 (1985), 59 NBR (2d) 140, 154 APR 140 (CA).
    • (Labour Law)
    • A concurring judgment, quashing the Chairman of the Public Service Relations Board's time extension order under section 55 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act's Regulation 69-85, because section 55 conflicted with the collective agreement and was inapplicable.
  • Re Campbell; New Brunswick, Province of v New Brunswick Public Employees Association and Campbell (1983), 49 NBR (2d) 145, 1983 CanLII 3831 (CA).
    • (Labour Law)
    • A judgment for the court quashing the award in favour of the grieving employee because the grievance was not filed within the time limit specified in the collective agreement.
  • New Brunswick v Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1190 (1984), 56 NBR (2d) 114, 1984 CanLII 4309 (CA).
    • (Labour Law)
    • A judgment for the court: when appointing from within the civil service based on the merit of candidates, as required by section 15 of the Civil Service Act, experience may be considered in determining merit, but seniority cannot displace merit.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

  • Omista Credit Union v Thomson and Phillips (1982), 43 NBR (2d) 628, 113 APR 628 (CA).
    • (Company Law; Personal Liability and Corporate Contracts)
    • A majority judgment: the defendants, and not their company, were personally liable for the disputed loans.
  • Clark v Canadian National Railway Co and New Brunswick (1985), 62 NBR (2d) 276, 17 DLR (4th) 58 (CA).
    • (Constitutional Law; Jurisdiction)
    • A majority judgment, holding that section 342(1) of the Railway Act was ultra vires the federal Parliament in so far as it attempted to prescribe a limitation period for a common law negligence action.
  • Rio Hotel Ltd v Liquor Licensing Board (1983), 47 NBR (2d) 436, 124 APR 436 (CA).
    • (Constitutional Law; Provincial Jurisdiction)
    • A judgment for the court: section 14(1)(a.1) of the Liquor Control Act is ultra vires of the province because it encroaches on the federal government's power to legislate over criminal law.
  • Canadian Pacific Ltd v Paul et al (1983), 50 NBR (2d) 126, 2 DLR (4th) 22 (CA).
    • (Courts; First Nations; Real Property)
    • A judgment for the court: "It has been held that an Indian band may also sue for trespass to property reserved for its use." The company was entitled, prior to Confederation, "to obtain a right of way over the Crown lands through which the railway ran on fulfilling all necessary requirements on its part," but the railway never obtained title. The court refused a permanent injunction for the railway but granted a six-month injunction to allow the railway to seek a permanent right of way.
  • Kennebecasis Park Ltd v Gould (1982), 39 NBR (2d) 209, 134 DLR (3d) 186 (CA).
    • (Creditors and Debtors)
    • A judgment for the court: the action is remitted for a hearing on the amount of interest, if any, to be paid.
  • New Brunswick v Federal Business Development Bank (1984), 54 NBR (2d) 329, 8 DLR (4th) 143 (CA).
    • (Crown; Sales and Service Tax)
    • A judgment for the court: the Federal Business Development Bank, as a prior mortgagee, had priority to funds derived from a sale of the debtor's property over a subsequent sales tax lien.
  • Beaulieu v Gagnon (1982), 40 NBR (2d) 433, 105 APR 433 (CA).
    • (Damages; Torts; Trespass)
    • A judgment for the court upholding the trial judge's finding of trespass and altering the award of damages to the plaintiff with costs.
  • Philibert v Lavoie (1984), 54 NBR (2d) 225, 140 APR 255 (CA).
    • (Damages; Torts)
    • A judgment for the court dismissing the defendant's appeal from a finding of sole responsibility for the plaintiffs injuries and affirming the damages awarded.
  • White et al v Smith Estate (1984), 54 NBR (2d) 293, 7 DLR (4th) 236 (CA).
    • (Deeds and Documents; Restitution)
    • A concurring judgment: retention of the securities by the Estate was an unjust enrichment and the plaintiffs' releases did not bar the children's claim to the value of the securities.
  • Roynat Ltd v Sommerville et al (1982), 40 NBR (2d) 578, 1982 CanLII 4208 (CA).
    • (Deeds; Material Alterations)
    • A concurring judgment dismissing the appeal: the history of alteration of deeds and documents that a subsequent material alteration avoided an instrument.
  • LE Shaw v Berube-Madawaska Contractors (1982), 40 NBR (2d) 374, 1982 CanLII 4204 (CA).
    • (Basements; Public Policy)
    • A judgment for the court: the municipality's easements were not immune from liens on the ground of public policy. Water sewage easements owned by a municipality within a housing division were subject to mechanics liens.
  • R v Phillips and Phillips (1981), 37 NBR (2d) 72, 97 APR 72 (CA).
    • (Evidence)
    • A concurring judgment, taking judicial notice of the fact that properly operation headlights on a motor vehicle are capable of being used to attract or locate game.
  • Minister of Transportation v Verret (1983), 47 NBR (2d) 48, 1983 CanLII 4042 (CA).
    • (Expropriation; Compensation Factors)
    • A judgment for the court: the Property Compensation Board did not err in failing to consider that lack of access decreased the value of the property because the lack of access would not have prevented development of the property.
  • R v Polchies and Paul (1982), 43 NBR (2d) 449, 1982 CanLII 4229 (CA).
    • (Fish and Game; First Nations and Inuit Rights; Treaty Rights)
    • A judgment for the court: Indigenous peoples do not have the right to hunt and fish at all times of the year in New Brunswick off First Nations Reserves. They are bound by the Fish and Wildlife Act. Treaties ought to be liberally construed.
  • R v Maillet (1984), 53 NBR (2d) 69, 138 APR 69 (CA).
    • (Fish and Game)
    • A judgment for the court: the offence of possession of undersized lobsters is one of strict liability, therefore, the accused's intention is irrelevant. The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered.
  • Sweet and Sweet v Co-operative Fire and Casualty Co (1983), 46 NBR (2d) 189, 1983 CanLII 3812 (CA)
    • (Insurance; Automobile Insurance)
    • A judgment for the court: the disability insurance benefits the plaintiff received through his trade union were not "available by reason of his employment" and therefore do not affect the defendant's liability.
  • Pipes v CNA Insurance Co (1982), 43 NBR (2d) 160, 113 APR 160 (CA).
    • (Insurance; Evidence; Burden of Proof)
    • A judgment for the court: the beneficiary failed to meet the requisite burden of proof in establishing that the insured's death was an accident and not the result of illness.
  • Vienneau v Arsenault (1982), 41 NBR (2d) 82, 1982 CanLII 4197 (CA).
    • (Limitations of Actions; Professional and General Negligence)
    • A judgment for the court upholding a lower court judgment finding the defendant, a barrister, liable to the plaintiff for professional negligence.
  • M. Robert Birmingham Ltd v Village of Perth-Andover (1981), 38 NBR (2d) 14, 130 DLR (3d) 545 (CA).
    • (Mechanics Lien; Restitution)
    • A judgment for the court dismissing the appellant's claims for restitution as without foundation under the Mechanic's Lien Act.
  • Saunders v Rothesay, Town of (1984), 54 NBR (2d) 266, 1984 CanLII 4316 (CA).
    • (Municipal Law; Police)
    • A concurring judgment: although the police chief was an officer of a municipality engaged in the administration of the municipality, he was not "necessary for the administration of the municipality," and therefore his dismissal was valid.
  • Bernier v Theriault (1982), 40 NBR (2d) 136, 1982 CanLII 4209 (CA).
    • (Negligence; Causation; Evidence)
    • A judgment for the court allowing the defendant's appeal from the trial judge's finding of liability: the plaintiff did not prove causation.
  • Breau et al v Soucy and Cyr (1982), 41 NBR (2d) 20, 107 APR 20 (CA).
    • (Nuisance; Operation of Injunctions)
    • A judgment for the court: an application for a stay of the operation of an injunction pending an appeal ought to be granted in the interests of justice.
  • Société Des Acadiens v Minority Language School Board (1984), 54 NBR (2d) 198, 8 DLR (4th) 238 (CA).
    • (Practice; Appeals)
    • A judgment for the court: the court of appeal "exercised an inherent jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to a person who alleges that he has been aggrieved or prejudiced by a decision in an action in which he was not a party."
  • R v Bantalor Trading Co (1983), 45 NBR (2d) 394, 1983 CanLII 3870 (CA).
    • (Practice; Persons who can sue and be sued)
    • A judgment for the court: "There was admissable evidence before the trial judge sufficient to establish a prima facie case that the company was incorporated."
  • Routh, Gaillard and Coburn v Bowes et al (1983), 47 NBR (2d) 425, 1983 CanLII 3935 (CA).
    • (Real property; Waters)
    • A judgment for the court: "In the case of a grant of land on the shore of a non-tidal river ... there is a presumption that the grant extends ad medium filum aquae ... The presumption ... is merely a rule of construction and the parties may, if they wish, override it." There is nothing in the deed at present to override this presumption.
  • New Brunswick v Estabrooks Pontiac Buick Ltd (1983), 44 NBR (2d) 201, 144 DLR (3d) 21 (CA).
    • (Sales Tax; Tax Lien; Statutory Interpretation)
    • A majority judgment determining the meaning of section 19(1) of the Social Services and Education Tax Act by using both English and French versions of the statute, reviewing the legislative history of the section, and using the Interpretations Act.
  • Fundy Ventilation v Brunswick Construction et al (1982), 40 NBR (2d) 484, 136 DLR (3d) 455 (CA).
    • (Statutory Interest; Mechanics Lien)
    • A judgment for the court dismissing the appeal: the defendant prematurely released the hold back. "Several of the trial Judge's findings of fact were contested on appeal ... a court of appeal should not alter such findings unless it is of the view that the trial Judge was palpably wrong."
  • Plant and Plant v Lanyon (1982), 43 NBR (2d) 204, 1982 CanLII 4205 (CA).
    • (Torts; Negligence; Standard of Care; Burden of Proof)
    • A judgment for the court allowing the appeal and reapportioning the damages from 60 per cent to 75 per cent against the defendant.
  • R v Schelew (1984 ), 52 NBR (2d) 142, 78 CPR (2d) 102 (CA).
    • (Trade and Regulation)
    • A judgment for the majority dismissing the appeal and upholding the acquittal of the defendants who were charged under the Combines Investigation Act.
  • Davis v Davis and Davis (1982), 41 NBR (2d) 590, 1982 CanLII 4232 (CA).
    • (Trusts; Tenancy in Common)
    • A judgment for the court dismissing the appeal: the property at issue was held in trust for the plaintiff and her husband as tenants in common.
  • Randall v Nicklin (1985), 58 NBR (2d) 414, 151 APR 414 (CA).
    • (Undue Influence; Interest)
    • A judgment for the court: the circumstances of the case raise the presumption of undue influence, but the presumption was rebutted by the obtainment of independent legal advice. There was an implied trust that the niece/defendant held the property as a trustee for the benefit of the plaintiff during his lifetime, after which it was to go to the survivor.
  • Mean and Mean v New Home Certification Program of the Atlantic Provinces (1984), 54 NBR (2d) 221, 5 CLR 271 (CA).
    • (Warranties)
    • A judgment for the court dismissing the defendant's appeal from a finding of liability against it, under the warranty program provided for the plaintiffs home. The court also increased the damages awarded to the plaintiffs.
  • Hunter v New Brunswick (Board of Public Utilities)(1984), 53 NBR (2d) 343, 3 CPR (3d) 280 (CA).
    • (Practice; Trade Regulation)
    • A concurring judgment: in the present case the respondent "failed to exercise its discretion to hear the director because it believed it could not under the law do so" but "the board was in error." The board's decision should be quashed and the director allowed to intervene.
  • Marche de Poission v Commission D'Amenagement (1984), 52 NBR (2d) 91, 1984 CanLII 4136 (CA).
    • (Administrative Law; Reasons for Decisions)
    • A judgment for the court, quashing the Provincial Planning Appeal Board's decision. The board did not give adequate reasons for its decision.
  • Oromocto Development Corp v Oromocto Property Developments (1981), 37 NBR (2d) 464, 1981 CanLII 3681 (CA).
    • (Agency; Estoppel; Contracts)
    • A judgment for the court dismissing the appeal: finding agency and estoppel, the defendant breached the agreement.
  • Caisse Populaire d'Inkerman Ltee v Dorion (1985), 61 NBR (2d) 123, 17 DLR (4th) 660 (CA).
    • (Banks and Banking; Barristers and Solicitors)
    • A majority judgment allowing in part an appeal of a solicitor found liable for professional negligence, finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent, and reducing the damages against the solicitor.
  • Lodger's International Ltd v O'Brien (1983), 45 NBR (2d) 342, 145 DLR (3d) 293 (CA).
    • (Administrative Law; Boards and Tribunals; Statutory Interpretation)
    • A judgment for the court: the NB Human Rights Commission lacked the authority under the Human Rights Act to issue subsequent orders with time limitations; therefore, the second order is quashed.

 

JUDGMENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (1985–1997)

 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

  • Bell v Canada (Human Rights Commission); Cooper v Canada, [1996] 3 SCR 854, 140 DLR (4th) 193.
    • (Administrative Law; Commissions and Tribunals)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Canadian Human Rights Commission is limited in its jurisdiction by the Human Rights Act and cannot subject the Act's provisions to constitutional scrutiny.
  • CAIMAW v Paccar of Canada Ltd, [1989] 2 SCR 983, 62 DLR (4th) 437.
    • (Administrative Law; Judicial Review; Appeals)
    • A concurring judgment: "Where, as here, an administrative tribunal is protected by a privative clause, its decisions should only be reviewed if that Board has either made an error in interpreting the provisions conferring jurisdiction on it, or has exceeded its jurisdiction by making a patently unreasonable error of law in the performance of its function." In this case, the Board had the jurisdiction and the decision was not patently unreasonable.
  • British Columbia (Milk Board) v Grisnich, [1995] 2 SCR 895, 126 DLR (4th) 191.
    • (Administrative Law; Subordinate Legislation)
    • A concurring judgment: "There is no precedent for holding that an administrative body must consciously identify the source of power it is relying on, in order for the exercise of that power to be valid ... When administrative bodies act, it is to be presumed that they believe themselves to be within the bounds of their statutory authority."

 

CONFLICT OF LAWS

  • Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077, 76 DLR (4th) 256.
    • (Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law)
    • A judgment for the majority: analyzing constitutional rules of various countries before extending the principle in the US Constitution of full faith and credit to judgments rendered in sister provinces. “The courts in one province should give full faith and credit, to use the language of the United States Constitution, to the judgments given by a court in another province or a territory, so long as that court has properly, or appropriately, exercised jurisdiction in the action.”
  • Hunt v T&N plc, [1993] 4 SCR 289, 109 DLR (4th) 16.
    • (Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law)
    • Analyzing whether the provisions of the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act, a "blocking statute," provides a "lawful excuse" under Rule 2(5) of the British Columbia Rules of Court such that Quebec defendants to a civil action in British Columbia can refuse to comply, as required by Rule 26 of the British Columbia Rules of Court, with a demand for discovery of documents. The fundamental issue is whether this statute is ultra vires or is constitutionally inapplicable to a judicial proceeding in another province.

 

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

  • Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island; Reference re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, [1997] 3 SCR 3, 150 DLR (4th) 577.
    • (Constitutional Law; Judicial Independence)
    • Dissenting: "Our Constitution expressly contemplates both the power of judicial review ... and guarantees of judicial independence ... Given that the express provisions dealing with constitutional protection for judicial independence have specifically spelled out their application, it seems strained to extend the ambit of this protection by reference to a general preambular statement."
  • Delgamuukw v British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010, 153 DLR (4th) 193.
    • (Constitutional Law; Aboriginal Rights; Aboriginal Title)
    • Aboriginal title is a sui generis interest "based on the continued occupation and use of the land as part of the aboriginal peoples’ traditional way of life ... The 'key' factors for recognizing aboriginal rights under section 35(1) are met in the present case ... The province had no authority to extinguish aboriginal rights."
  • R v Gladstone, [1996] 2 SCR 723, 137 DLR (4th) 648.
    • (Constitutional Law; Aboriginal rights; Criminal Law)
    • Dissenting: "the Heiltsuk did have an aboriginal right to barter and trade herring spawn on kelp to a certain degree." However, "the appellants’ activities, which, the trial judge found, were done in a completely different context, accordingly did not form an integral part of the distinctive culture of the Heiltsuk and the aboriginal rights of the Heiltsuk were therefore not infringed."
  • R v Côté, [1996] 3 SCR 139, 138 DLR (4th) 385.
    • (Constitutional Law; Aboriginal Rights; Indigenous Fishing Rights)
    • A concurring judgment: "The traditional use by natives that has continued from pre‑contact times of a particular area for a particular purpose can be recognized as an aboriginal right, even though the natives have no general right of occupation ('Indian title') of the affected land ... The right claimed is, therefore, an 'existing right' under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982."
  • Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5, 81 DLR (4th) 121.
    • (Constitutional Law; Administrative Law; Jurisdiction)
    • A judgment for the majority: "An administrative tribunal which has been given the power to interpret law holds a concomitant power to determine whether that law is constitutionally valid ... Further, a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy which is available to the Board."
  • R v Goldhart, [1996] 2 SCR 463, 136 DLR (4th) 502.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Admissibility of Evidence)
    • Dissenting: the accused's conviction ought to be overturned because he was convicted by evidence that should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
  • McKinney v University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229, 76 DLR (4th) 545.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Application)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Charter applies to government action only. "The actions of universities do not fall within the ambit of the Charter because they do not form part of the government apparatus."
  • Harrison v University of British Columbia, [1990] 3 SCR 451, 77 DLR (4th) 55.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Application)
    • A judgment for the majority: "for the reasons given in McKinney ... the higher degree of governmental control present here did not justify the application of the Charter."
  • Stoffman v Vancouver General Hospital, [1990] 3 SCR 483, 76 DLR (4th) 700.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Application)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Charter applies to government only and neither the Vancouver General nor its Board can be considered government actors.
  • Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v Douglas College, [1990] 3 SCR 570, 77 DLR (4th) 94.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Application)
    • A judgment for the majority: "The college was performing acts of government in carrying out its functions" and, therefore, the Charter is applicable; "the collective agreement is law" and is inconsistent with section 15(1) of the Charter.
  • R v Rahey, [1987] 1 SCR 588, 39 DLR (4th) 481.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Courts)
    • A concurring judgment: "there must at all times be a court of competent jurisdiction to which resort can be had to determine whether an accused's constitutional right to be tried within a reasonable time has been infringed ... Consequently, whenever there is no other court seized with the proceedings, or where the court so seized is unable to provide an effective remedy, the superior court of the province may exercise jurisdiction."
  • R v Potvin, [1993] 2 SCR 880, 105 DLR (4th) 214.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Criminal Law)
    • A concurring judgment: "Section 11(b) of the Charter does not apply to appellate delay ... Weight may be given to pre‑appeal delay at the appellate level and a consideration of appellate delay can figure in the equation when complaints about delay are raised at trial following appellate review."
  • R v Wise, [1992] 1 SCR 527, 8 CRR (2d) 53.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Criminal Law)
    • A judgment in dissent: "The installation of the tracking device in the appellant's car constituted an unlawful trespass and violates his privacy rights under section 8 of the Charter ... The evidence obtained through the use of the tracking device should be excluded."
  • Harvey v New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1996] 2 SCR 876, 137 DLR (4th) 142.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Electoral Rights)
    • A judgment for the majority: "The provisions of section 119(c) [of the Elections Act] are prima facie unconstitutional as violating the appellant’s rights under section 3 of the Charter " but it is "a justified infringement upon the right to be qualified for membership in the Legislative Assembly under section 1 of the Charter."
  • Egan v Canada, [1995] 2 SCR 513, 124 DLR (4th) 609.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Equality)
    • A judgment for the majority: the distinction made in section 2 of the Old Age Security Act is not based on an irrelevant personal characteristic enumerated or analogous to the grounds in section 15; therefore, it is constitutional.
  • Tétreault-Gadoury v Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), [1991] 2 SCR 22, 81 DLR (4th) 358.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Equality)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Board of Referees has jurisdiction over the parties but not over the subject matter and the remedy; section 31 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 violates section 15 of the Charter and is not saved by section 1.
  • R v Harrer, [1995] 3 SCR 562, 128 DLR (4th) 98.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Exclusion of Evidence)
    • A judgment for the majority: "the Charter simply has no direct application to the interrogations in the United States because the governments mentioned in section 32(1) were not implicated in these activities." Furthermore, "the admission of the impugned evidence would not result in an unfair trial."
  • United States v Cotroni, [1989] 1 SCR 1469, 96 NR 321.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Extradition)
    • A judgment for the majority: "The extradition of a Canadian citizen prima facie infringes the citizen's right to remain in Canada as guaranteed by section 6(1) of the Charter." In the case at bar, however, the infringement is justified under section 1 of the Charter.
  • Argentina v Mellino, [1987] 1 SCR 536, 40 DLR (4th) 74.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Extradition)
    • A judgment for the majority: "The extradition judge erred in dismissing the application for extradition on the ground that the respondent's right under section 11(b) of the Charter has been infringed. Section 11 has no application to extradition hearings ... an extradition judge has no jurisdiction to deal with these issues and to grant the appropriate remedies" under section 24 of the Charter.
  • Canada v Schmidt, [1987] 1 SCR 500, 7 DLR (4th) 95.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Extradition)
    • A judgment for the majority: " the judge at an extradition hearing has no jurisdiction to deal with defences that could be raised at trial ... [and] section 11(h) of the Charter does not apply to an extradition hearing."
  • Canadian Broadcasting Corp v New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1991] 3 SCR 459, 85 DLR (4th) 57.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; freedom of the Press)
    • "The appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given in Canadian Broadcasting Corp v Lessard."
  • RB v Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 SCR 315, 122 DLR (4th) 1.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Freedom of Religion)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Child Welfare Act did not deprive the appellants of their liberty in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice" and therefore does not violate section 7 of the Charter. "The right of parents to rear their children according to their religious beliefs ... is a fundamental aspect of freedom of religion, guaranteed by section 2(a) of the Charter ... This infringement was justified, however, under section 1."
  • Edmonton Journal v Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 SCR 1326, 64 DLR (4th) 577.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression)
    • Dissenting in part: "the freedom of expression, which includes the freedom of the press and other media, is subject to such limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Section 30(1) of Alberta's Judicature Act is a reasonable limit, but section 30(2) is not.
  • R v Andrews, [1990] 3 SCR 870, 77 DLR (4th) 128.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Freedom of Expression; Hate Propaganda)
    • A judgment in dissent: "For the reasons given by the minority in Keegstra, section 319(2) of the [Criminal] Code is an unjustifiable limit on the guarantee of freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Charter."
  • R v Jones, [1986] 2 SCR 284, 31 DLR (4th) 569.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Freedom of Religion)
    • A judgment for the majority: the provisions of the Alberta School Act do "constitute some interference with the appellant's freedom of religion" but do not violate section 2(a) of the Charter. Scholarly requirements are reasonable limits.
  • Canadian Broadcasting Corp v Lessard, [1991] 3 SCR 421, 130 NR 321.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Freedom of the Press)
    • A concurring judgment: the search and seizure of videotapes made by the media is "reasonable under section 8 of the Charter." Although "the press should not be turned into a investigative arm of the police," there is a difference between searching a reporter's notes and seizing videotape.
  • RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 SCR 199, 127 DLR (4th) 1.
    • Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Freedom of Expression)
    • Dissenting: the Tobacco Products Control Act "was validly enacted under the criminal law power." While the Act infringed section 2(b) of the Charter, it was justified under section 1.
  • Kindler v Canada (Minister of Justice), [1991] 2 SCR 779, 84 DLR (4th) 438.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Fundamental Justice)
    • A judgment for the majority: the extradition of an accused to a foreign jurisdiction to be tried where the death penalty may be imposed does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter, nor did it "offend the principles of fundamental justice" in this case.
  • R v Lyons, [1987] 2 SCR 309, 44 DLR (4th) 193.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Fundamental Justice)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Criminal Code provisions for finding "dangerous offender" do not violate section 7 of the Charter, nor is it cruel and unusual punishment under section 12, nor arbitrary under section 9.
  • R v Potvin, [1989] 1 SCR 525, 93 NR 42.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Fundamental Justice; Criminal Law)
    • A concurring judgment: section 643(1) of the Criminal Code gives the trial judge the discretion to allow preliminary hearing evidence from a witness who does not testify at trial into evidence, as governed by the ordinary principles of evidence; thus, "the trial judge failed to exercise the discretion which was incumbent upon him to ensure a fair trial."
  • R v Creighton, [1993] 3 SCR 3, 105 DLR (4th) 632.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Manslaughter)
    • A concurring judgment: "Both at the constitutional level and in the interpretation of offences, the adoption of subjective rather than objective mens rea was favoured."
  • Black v Law Society of Alberta, [1989] 1 SCR 591, 58 DLR (4th) 317.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Mobility Rights)
    • A majority judgment: "A purposive approach to the Charter dictates a broad approach to mobility." Rules 75B and 154 of the Law Society of Alberta infringe section 6(2) of the Charter and cannot be saved under section 1.
  • R v Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 SCR 636, 47 DLR (4th) 399.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Principles of Fundamental Justice)
    • A concurring judgment: "the principles of fundamental justice require a mens rea reflecting the particular nature of that crime, namely one referable to causing death." Section 213(d) of the Criminal Code violates these principles and cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter.
  • Schachter v Canada, [1992] 2 SCR 679, 93 DLR (4th) 1.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Remedies)
    • A concurring judgment: "The legislation concerned concededly violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and does not fall within the very narrow type of cases where only a portion of the legislation may be read down or corrected by reading in material as being the obvious intention of the legislature. There is a long tradition of reading down legislation and, where it substantially amounts to the same thing, reading in is possible. These devices, however, should only be employed in the clearest of cases. In light of Parliament's subsequent action, there was no reason to declare the impugned legislation invalid and then suspend that declaration."
  • R v Vermette, [1988] 1 SCR 985, 50 DLR (4th) 385.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Right to a Fair Trial)
    • A judgment for the majority: "whether the respondent can be tried by an impartial jury can only be determined when the jury is selected." Therefore, a Charter motion in this case was premature.
  • R v Smith, [1989] 2 SCR 368, 61 DLR (4th) 462.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Right to Counsel)
    • A judgment in dissent: the accused was not given "a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel." The accused's statement, therefore, should be excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.
  • R v Evans, [1996] 1 SCR 8, 131 DLR (4th) 654.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Search and Seizure)
    • Concurring: "my colleague holds that the search was unreasonable because it was illegal. I think it was illegal because it was unreasonable ... The sanctity of the home has constituted a bulwark against the intrusion of state agents for hundreds of years ... Our society simply cannot accept police wandering about or 'sniffing' around our homes."
  • R v Gallagher, [1993] 2 SCR 861, 155 NR 215.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Trial within a Reasonable Time)
    • A concurring judgment: there was not an unreasonable delay in this case, for the reasons explained in R v Potvin.
  • R v Frazer, [1993] 2 SCR 866, 155 NR 220.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Trial within a Reasonable Time)
    • A concurring judgment: there was not an unreasonable delay in this case, for the reasons explained in R v Potvin.
  • R v Colarusso, [1994] 1 SCR 20, 110 DLR (4th) 297.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • A judgment for the majority: "where a bodily sample is seized by a party other than the police but is ultimately used against the individual in a criminal prosecution, the court must go beyond the initial non-police seizure and determine whether the actions of the police constitute a seizure by the state or make the initially valid seizure by the coroner unreasonable."
  • R v Wong, [1990] 3 SCR 36, 120 NR 34.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • A judgment for the majority: "the degree of privacy reasonably expected in a free society would be seriously diminished by unrestricted video surveillance by agents of the state." The seizure in the case at bar violated the accused's section 8 Charter rights and was not justified under section 1. The appellant has not shown, however, that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  • Comité paritaire de l'industrie de la chemise v Potash, [1994] 2 SCR 406, 115 DLR (4th) 702.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • A judgment for the majority: "in view of the important purpose of regulatory legislation, the need for powers of inspection and the lower expectation of privacy, a proper balance between the interests of society and the rights of individuals does not require, in addition to the legislative authority, a system of prior authorization."
  • R v Edwards, [1996] 1 SCR 128, 132 DLR (4th) 31.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • Concurring: "the protection accorded by [section 8 of the Charter] is not in its terms limited to searches of premises over which an accused has a personal right to privacy in the sense of some direct control or property. Rather the provision is intended to afford protection to all of us to be secure against intrusion by the state or is agents by unreasonable searches or seizures, and is not solely for the protection of criminals."
  • R v Wiggins, [1990] 1 SCR 62, 103 NR 118.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • A judgment for the majority: for the reasons given in R v Duarte, the electronic surveillance conducted by police infringes the defendant's section 8 Charter rights but was not saved by section 1 of the Charter.
  • R v Duarte, [1990] 1 SCR 30, 65 DLR (4th) 240.
    • Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • A concurring judgment: "surreptitious electronic surveillance of the individual by an agency of the state constitutes and unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter." In the case at bar, the seizure was "in no way deliberate and it stemmed from an entirely reasonable misunderstanding of the law"; therefore, "the admission of this evidence would not bring the administration of the law into disrepute."
  • R v Silveira, [1995] 2 SCR 297, 124 DLR (4th) 193.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • A dissenting judgment: the police, as the Crown conceded, "violated the appellant's rights under section 8 of the Charter" by entering and securing the appellant's house without a warrant. It is unrealistic to make a distinction between the entry into the house and the subsequent search. Each was "part of a single operation." The evidence, therefore, should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
  • R v Dyment, [1988] 2 SCR 417, 55 DLR (4th) 503.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • "The use of a person's body," including his blood, "without his consent to obtain information about him invades an area of privacy essential to the maintenance of his human dignity" and is protected by section 8 of the Charter.
  • Lavigne v Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), [1991] 2 SCR 211, 81 DLR (4th) 545.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights Application)
    • The Charter applies to this case since the obligation imposed on Lavigne to pay [union] dues can be attributed to government." Although the compulsion violates section 2(d) of the Charter, it is justified under section 1.
  • R v Belnavis, [1997] 3 SCR 341, 151 DLR (4th) 443.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
    • Dissenting: there was no reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver or passenger had committed a criminal offence that would warrant a police search. The evidence, therefore, should be rejected under section 24(2) of the Charter.
  • Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 143, 56 DLR (4th) 1.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Equality; Citizenship)
    • A concurring judgment: section 15 of the Charter "was not intended to be a tool for the wholesale subjection of legislation to judicial scrutiny." Citizenship is an irrelevant personal difference in the case at bar, and the distinction cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter.
  • Morguard Investments Ltd v De Savoye, [1990] 3 SCR 1077, 76 DLR (4th) 256.
    • (Constitutional Law, Conflict of Laws)
    • A judgment for the majority: analyzing constitutional rules of various countries before extending the principle in the U.S. constitution of "full faith and credit" to the judgments rendered in other provinces: “the courts in one province should give full faith and credit, to use the language of the United States Constitution, to the judgments given by a court in another province or territory, so long as that court has properly, or appropriately, exercised jurisdiction in the action.”
  • Hunt v T&N plc, [1993] 4 SCR 289, 109 DLR (4th) 16.
    • (Constitutional Law, Conflict of Laws)
    • Analyzing whether the provisions of the Quebec Business Concerns Records Act, a "blocking statute," provide a "lawful excuse" under Rule 2(5) of the British Columbia Rules of Court, such that Quebec defendants to a civil action in British Columbia can refuse to comply, as required by Rule 26 of the British Columbia Rules of Court, with a demand for discovery of documents. The fundamental issue is whether this statute is ultra vires or whether it is constitutionally inapplicable to a judicial proceeding in another province.
  • Sobeys Stores Ltd v Yeomans and Labour Standards Tribunal (NS), [1989] 1 SCR 238, 57 DLR (4th) 1.
    • (Constitutional Law; Courts Jurisdiction)
    • A concurring judgment: the province had the legislative jurisdiction to empower the director of Labour Standards and the Labour Standards Tribunal to hear and determine disputes relating to the Labour Standards Code. The Constitution Act, 1867 and sections 67A(2) and (3) of the Labour Code were not ultra vires the province.
  • Mills v The Queen, [1986] 1 SCR 863, 29 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Constitutional Law; Courts of Competent Jurisdiction)
    • A concurring judgment dismissing the appeal: a preliminary hearing magistrate is not a court of competent jurisdiction to give a remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter, specifically for determining whether an accused has been tried within a reasonable time.
  • Reference re Young Offenders Act (PEI), [1991] 1 SCR 252, 77 DLR (4th) 492.
    • (Constitutional Law; Courts; Jurisdiction)
    • A concurring judgment: it is only the first step, not the second or third, of the Residential Tenancies test that is relevant to the question of whether an ordinary court is exercising a function ordinarily assigned to superior courts. The sole question is the proper characterization of the power.
  • R v BLL; R v JTF, [1991] 1 SCR 285, 62 CCC (3d) 190.
    • (Constitutional Law; Courts; Jurisdiction)
    • For the reasons given in Ref re Young Offenders Act (PEI), youth courts are not the exclusive domain of section 96 courts.
  • R v DAW, [1991] 1 SCR 291, 61 CCC (3d) 574.
    • (Constitutional Law; Courts; Jurisdiction)
    • Youth courts are not to be considered section 96 courts within the Constitution Act, 1867.
  • R v Corbett, [1988] 1 SCR 670, 85 NR 81.
    • (Constitutional Law; Criminal Law; Evidence; Right to a Fair Trial)
    • A judgment in dissent: a trial judge has the discretionary power to exclude or to admit evidence of an accused's prior conviction(s). The admittance of such evidence does not violate an accused's right to a fair trial, and any deprivation of liberty is in accord with the principles of fundamental justice.
  • R v Mercure, [1988] 1 SCR 234, 48 DLR (4th) 1.
    • (Constitutional Law; Criminal Law)
    • A judgment for the majority: since no provision of the Saskatchewan Act was inconsistent with section 110 of the North-West Territories Act, section 110 continues in effect, and the statutes of Saskatchewan must be in French and English. Both versions may be used in the courts. The conviction under the English language statute should be quashed.
  • Ontario Hydro v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1993] 3 SCR 327, 107 DLR (4th) 457.
    • (Constitutional Law; Distribution of Legislative Powers)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Canada Labour Code applies to employees of Ontario Hydro who are employed on or in connection with those nuclear facilities that come under section 18 of the Atomic Energy Control Act.
  • Friends of the Oldman River Society v Canada (Minister of Transport), [1992] 1 SCR 3, 88 DLR (4th) 1.
    • (Constitutional Law; Distribution of Powers; Environment)
    • A judgment for the majority: "the environment is not an independent matter of legislation under the Constitution Act, 1867 ... While both levels [of legislative power] may act in relation to the environment, the exercise of legislative power affecting environmental concerns must be linked to an appropriate head of power ... The Guidelines Order cannot be used as a colourable device to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction which are unconnected to the relevant heads of federal power."
  • Ontario Home Builders' Assn v York Region Board of Education, [1996] 2 SCR 929, 137 DLR (4th) 449.
    • (Constitutional Law; Division of Powers; Charter)
    • Concurring: the Educational Development Charge relates to the taxation power of the province. The charge is intra vires as a direct tax under section 92(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
  • R v Hydro-Quebec, [1997] 3 SCR 213, 151 DLR (4th) 32.
    • (Constitutional Law; Division of Powers; Environmental Protection)
    • A judgment for the majority: the protection of the environment is not a subject of legislation under the Constitution Act, 1867. The protection of the environment through prohibitions against toxic substances, however, constitutes a wholly legitimate public objective in the exercise of Parliament's criminal law powers.
  • Whitbread v Walley, [1990] 3 SCR 1273, 77 DLR (4th) 25.
    • (Constitutional Law; Division of Powers; Maritime Law)
    • A judgment for the majority: "tortious liability in a maritime context is governed by a body of maritime law which lies within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Parliament."
  • Scowby v Glendinning, [1986] 2 SCR 226, 32 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Constitutional Law; Division of Powers)
    • A judgment in dissent: a board of inquiry, established by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, may validly inquire into allegation of arbitrary arrest and detention contrary to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code against the RCMP.
  • R v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 401, 49 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Constitutional Law; Division of Powers)
    • A dissenting judgment: while Parliament may prohibit the dumping of anything into federal waters, such prohibitions against dumping substances into provincial waters must be linked to some federal power. Section 4(1) of the Ocean Dumping Control Act was ultra vires Parliament because there was no evidence of such a link.
  • R v Edwards Books and Art Ltd, [1986] 2 SCR 713, 35 DLR (4th) 1.
    • (Constitutional Law; Freedom of Religion; Right to Liberty)
    • A concurring judgment: although section 2(a) of the Charter is infringed by the Retail Business Holidays Act, the legislature must be given room to manoeuvre in determining what is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
  • Mackeigan v Hickman, [1989] 2 SCR 796, 61 DLR (4th) 688.
    • (Constitutional Law; Judiciary; Judicial Privilege)
    • A concurring judgment: The Nova Scotia Public Enquiries Act does not "override the fundamental principle of judicial immunity from being compelled to testify about the decision-making process ... in a particular case."
  • Reference re: Goods and Services Tax, [1992] 2 SCR 445, 94 DLR (4th) 51.
    • (Constitutional Law; Taxation; Division of Powers)
    • A concurring judgment: The Goods and Services Tax Act is intra vires the federal Parliament, falling within section 91(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
  • Thomson Newspapers Ltd v Canada (Director of Investigation and Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission), [1990] 1 SCR 425, 67 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Constitutional Law; Charter of Rights; Combines Investigation)
    • A concurring judgment: section 17 of the Combines Investigation Act does not contravene section 7 of the Charter. Section 7 "does not give an absolute right to silence or a generalized right against self-incrimination." The order made under section 17 of the Act is a seizure, but it is not unreasonable.

 

CONTRACTS

  • Hodgkinson v Simms, [1994] 3 SCR 377, 117 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Contracts; Fiduciary Duty)
    • A judgment for the majority: liability in this case inexorably flows from the principles underlying the notion of fiduciary duty. The finding of a fiduciary relationship in the independent advisory context does not represent an addition to the law. Policy considerations support finding relationships in the case of financial advisors. The proper approach to damages for the breach in the case is restitutionary.
  • London Drugs Ltd v Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd, [1992] 3 SCR 299, 97 DLR (4th) 261.
    • (Contracts; Privity; Torts)
    • Dissenting on the cross-appeal: the respondent employees did not owe any duty of care to the appellant in the circumstances of this case. Because of the proximity created by contract, the company owes a duty of care to the customer and is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees.
  • HW Liebig & Company Limited v Leading Investments Limited, [1986] 1 SCR 70, 25 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Contracts; Real Estate)
    • A concurring judgment: the listing agreement governed. The bargain between the vendor and broker was struck when the listing agreement was signed and its meaning was not altered by reading it with the agreement of purchase and sale.

 

CRIMINAL LAW

  • R v Landry, [1986] 1 SCR 145, 26 DLR (4th) 368.
    • (Criminal Law; Arrest without a Warrant)
    • A judgment in dissent: the appeal ought to be dismissed; the sanctity of private dwellings must be maintained and ought not be violated by police without a warrant in the absence of good reasons.
  • R v Hundal, [1993] 1 SCR 867, 149 NR 189.
    • (Criminal Law; Dangerous Driving; Mens Rea)
    • The offence of dangerous driving "(a quasi-regulatory offence) differs in both its wording and object from the general office of criminal negligence which requires a subjective mens rea."
  • R v Parks, [1992] 2 SCR 871, 95 DLR (4th) 27.
    • (Criminal Law; Defences; Automatism; Sleepwalking)
    • A judgment for the majority: "in distinguishing between automatism and insanity the trial judge must consider not only the evidence but also overarching policy considerations ... An involuntary act, including one committed in an automatistic state entitles an accused to an unqualified acquittal, unless the automatistic condition stems from a disease of the mind that has rendered the accused insane."
  • R v MacKenzie, [1993] 1 SCR 212, 146 NR 321.
    • (Criminal Law; Evidence; Appeals)
    • A majority judgment allowing the appeal and restoring the acquittal: the trial judge's charge to the jury, viewed as a whole, was not misleading. "The Court of Appeal did not misstate the standard of appellate review by requiring only that the Crown show the jury's verdict might have been different had it been properly instructed."
  • R v Hawkins, [1996] 3 SCR 1043, 141 DLR (4th) 193.
    • (Criminal Law; Evidence; Witnesses)
    • Concurring: "the common law rule of spousal incompetence should not be modified in the circumstances of this case ... [The wife's] testimony at the preliminary inquiry may be read into evidence at trial through a principled exception to the hearsay rule."
  • Michaud v Québec (Attorney General), [1996] 3 SCR 3, 138 DLR (4th) 423.
    • (Criminal Law; Interception of Private Communications)
    • Concurring: "since the advent of the Charter, a person who was under electronic surveillance and was subsequently charged has been automatically entitled to access to the sealed packet, subject to the editing power of the judge to whom the application was made." This applies to the accused and the non-accused alike.
  • R v Thompson, [1990] 2 SCR 1111, 73 DLR (4th) 596.
    • (Criminal Law; Interception of Private Communications; Admissibility of Evidence)
    • A dissenting judgment: "simply authorizing the police, in their sole discretion, to use any electronic means of interception anywhere the suspect may go is incompatible with" Part IV.1 of the Criminal Code and section 8 of the Charter. The evidence in this case should be inadmissible.
  • R v Penno, [1990] 2 SCR 865, 115 NR 249.
    • (Criminal Law; Intoxication; Defences)
    • A concurring judgment: Having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired is prohibited by the Criminal Code. It is an offence to commit a prohibited act while impaired. It would, therefore, be inconsistent to use intoxication as a defence for impairment. Section 234(1) of the Criminal Code does not violate sections 7 or 11(d) of the Charter.
  • R v Bernard, [1988] 2 SCR 833, 90 NR 321.
    • (Criminal Law; Mens Rea)
    • A concurring judgment: the requirement of mens rea is so fundamental in criminal offenses that incursions upon such fundamental legal values must be made by legislatures and not judicial policy.
  • Dagenais v Canadian Broadcasting Corp, [1994] 3 SCR 835, 120 DLR (4th) 12.
    • (Criminal Law; Publication Bans) Dissenting: "there is no direct appeal to this Court under section 40 of the Supreme Court Act from the superior court judge's order ... [However,] a remedy may be available under section 24(1) of the Charter even against a decision of a superior court judge." Since the effect of the order was an infringement of the appellant Charter right to freedom of expression to serve a government purpose, the order may be subjected to Charter scrutiny.
  • R v Milne, [1987] 2 SCR 512, 46 DLR (4th) 487.
    • (Criminal Law; Sentencing)
    • A concurring judgment: when "a change in the law deletes the offence of which the appellant was convicted" the change "does not alter the status of dangerous offender," nor is it reversible under sections 9 or 12 of the Charter.
  • R v Audet, [1996] 2 SCR 171, 135 DLR (4th) 20.
    • (Criminal Law; Sexual Offence; Persons in a Position of Authority)
    • A judgment for the majority: "in this case there is no circumstance relevant to the determination of the nature of the relationship between the accused and the young person that could raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the trier of fact as to the accused's position of trust." The acquittal should be set aside and a verdict of guilty substituted.
  • R v MBP, [1994] 1 SCR 555, 113 DLR (4th) 461.
    • (Criminal Law; Sexual offenses)
    • A judgment in dissent: "the trial judge did not err in allowing the Crown to reopen its case and amend the indictment ... The difficulty of children pinpointing the exact time of incidents which have occurred several years before, but which they are able to define in terms of other contemporaneous matters, should be underlined."
  • R v Curragh Inc, [1997] 1 SCR 537, 144 DLR (4th) 614.
    • (Criminal Law; Trials; Bias)
    • A judgment for the majority: "the trial judge's actions and words during the trial" and "prior to the order staying the proceedings ... created a reasonable apprehension of bias ... Where a reasonable apprehension of bias is demonstrated the trial judge has no further jurisdiction in the proceedings and the only appropriate remedy is a new trial."
  • R v Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701, 112 DLR (4th) 513.
    • (Criminal Law; war Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity)
    • A dissenting judgment: the appeal by the Crown of the accused's acquittal at trial should be dismissed.

 

FAMILY LAW

  • Thomson v Thomson, [1994] 3 SCR 551, 119 DLR (4th) 253.
    • (Family Law; Custody; Abduction)
    • A judgment for the majority: the mother, by removing the child from Scotland, was "violating the Scottish court's order" and "this Court therefore must order the return of the child 'forthwith.' "
  • Pelch v Pelch, [1987] 1 SCR 801, 38 DLR (4th) 641.
    • (Family Law; Divorce; Variation of Maintenance Agreement)
    • A concurring judgment: "the trial judge erred in ordering a variation of the settlement." The appellant's subsequent reliance on welfare for income is not sufficient to shift that burden to the respondent.
  • Richardson v Richardson, [1987] 1 SCR 857, 38 DLR (4th) 699.
    • (Family Law; Maintenance; Variation of Settlement Agreement)
    • A judgment in dissent: the parties to a divorce cannot oust the judge's discretion to award maintenance; an existing contract is only one factor to be considered.
  • Frame v Smith, [1987] 2 SCR 99, 42 DLR (4th) 81.
    • (Family Law; Practice)
    • A judgment for the majority: all old tort actions to protect a father's interests in his children have been abolished by the Family Law Reform Act. Any possible judicial action has been superseded by legislative action.

 

TAXATION

  • McClurg v Canada, [1990] 3 SCR 1020, 76 DLR (4th) 217.
    • (Taxation; Income Tax; Company Law)
    • Dissenting: "a discretionary dividend clause that permits the directors of a corporation to choose which class [of shareholders] is entitled to receive dividends to the exclusion of the other classes is invalid at common law ... [The] dividend would have been included in Mr. McClurg's income had the allocation been properly made."
  • Kourtessis v Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [1993] 2 SCR 53, 102 DLR (4th) 456.
    • (Taxation; Income Tax; Courts)
    • A judgment for the majority allowing the appeal: "section 231.3 of the Income Tax Act infringes section 8 of the Charter."
  • Schwartz v Canada, [1996] 1 SCR 254, 133 DLR (4th) 289.
    • (Taxation; Income Tax; Courts)
    • A judgment for the majority: "taxability in this case should be assessed pursuant to the retiring allowances provisions of the [Income Tax] Act ... [and] the damages received by the appellant cannot be considered a 'retiring allowance' within the meaning of section 248(1) of the Act."
  • Air Canada v British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 1161, 59 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Taxation; Provincial Powers)
    • A judgment for the majority: the Gasoline Tax Act, 1976 and 1981 were valid provincial legislation under its taxing powers. The act did not violate the Charter nor infringe federal powers.
  • Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd v British Columbia, [1989] 1 SCR 1133, 59 DLR (4th) 218.
    • (Taxation; Provincial Powers)
    • "There was not sufficient presence in the province to provide a basis for the imposition of the tax on in-flight sales of alcohol," as provided for in the Social Service Tax Act. However, the airline "cannot recover the money paid by its passengers for the tax on alcoholic beverages."

 

TORTS

  • BG Checo Int Ltd v British Columbia (Hydro and Power Authority), [1993] 1 SCR 12, 99 DLR (4th) 577.
    • (Torts; Contracts; Concurrent Liability)
    • A judgment for the majority: "Hydro is liable to Checo for breach of contract ... The contract does not preclude Checo from suing in tort." No limitation was included in the contract; therefore, "Checo is entitled to be compensated for all reasonably foreseeable losses caused by the tort."
  • Canadian National Railway Co v Norsk Pacific Steamship Co, [1992] 1 SCR 1021, 91 DLR (4th) 289.
    • (Torts; Economic Loss)
    • A judgment in dissent: "My conclusion is that the bright line rule excluding recovery for economic loss owing to interference with contractual relations that results from damage to a third party's property should not be modified, at least on the facts of this case."
  • Hollis v Dow Corning Corp, [1995] 4 SCR 634, 129 DLR (4th) 609.
    • (Torts; Manufacturer's Duty to Warn)
    • A judgment for the majority: "a manufacturer of a product has a duty in tort to warn consumers of dangers it knows or ought to know are inherent in the product's use ... The 'learned intermediary' rule is applicable in the context of this case. Dow's warning to the surgeon here was inadequate, however."
  • Edgeworth Construction Ltd v ND Lea & Associates Ltd, [1993] 3 SCR 206, 107 DLR (4th) 169.
    • (Torts; Negligence; Duty of Care)
    • "There are ... technical distinctions between the ordinary tort of negligence and negligent misrepresentation." Furthermore, "there are sound policy reasons why they should not be subjected to a duty to the appellant."
  • Rothfield v Manolakos, [1989] 2 SCR 1259, 63 DLR (4th) 449.
    • (Torts; Negligence; Municipalities)
    • A judgment for the majority: "the city, once it made the policy decision to inspect building plans and construction, owed a duty of care to all who it is reasonable to conclude might be injured by the negligent exercise of those powers."
  • Queen v Cognos Inc, [1993] 1 SCR 87, 99 DLR (4th) 626.
    • (Torts; Negligent Misrepresentation)
    • A judgment for the majority: this is not a case of "concurrent liability in tort and contract ... The tort here was independent of the contract and the liability was not limited by an exclusion clause in the contract."
  • Tock v St John's Metropolitan Area Board, [1989] 2 SCR 1181, 64 DLR (4th) 620.
    • (Torts; Nuisance; The Defence of Statutory Authority)
    • A concurring judgment: "The flooding here would constitute a compensable nuisance if this case had been between private individuals. It was not reasonable to deny compensation to the appellant because the damage was suffered at the hands of a body exercising statutory authority."
  • Norberg v Wynrib, [1992] 2 SCR 226, 92 DLR (4th) 449.
    • (Torts; Battery; Consent)
    • A judgment for the majority: The consent of the patient was rendered void on the grounds of unconscionability. The appellant is entitled to general, aggravated, and punitive damages for battery.

 

MISCELLANEOUS

  • Citadel General Assurance Co v Lloyds Bank Canada, [1997] 3 SCR 805, 152 DLR (4th) 411.
    • (Trusts and Trustees; Breach of Trust)
    • There was clearly a relationship of trust between the appellant and D, a trust that D clearly breached. The bank's resulting enrichment was unjust, rendering it liable to the appellants as a constructive trustee.
  • Geffen v Goodman Estate, [1991] 2 SCR 353, 81 DLR (4th) 211.
    • (Trusts and Trustees; Undue Influence)
    • A concurring judgment: "Mrs. Goodman's relationship with her brothers was not a close one and the trial judge found that it was such that the three brothers had no influence on their sister at all."
  • Dagg v Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 SCR 403, 148 DLR (4th) 385.
    • (Access to Information; Privacy)
    • Dissenting: Both the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act recognize that, in so far as it is encompassed by the definition of 'personal information' in section 3 of the Privacy Act, privacy is paramount over access." The requested access in this case is personal information.
  • Canson Enterprises Ltd v Boughton & Co, [1991] 3 SCR 534, 85 DLR (4th) 129.
    • (Damages; Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
    • A judgment for the majority: The breach of a fiduciary duty in the case at bar was "sufficient to call upon equity's jurisdiction to compensate the appellants for breach of the duty." Compensation for breach of a fiduciary duty, however, is not akin to compensation in trust cases.
  • Longueuil (City) v Lambert-Picotte, [1991] 2 SCR 401, 83 DLR (4th) 37.
    • (Expropriation; Indemnity)
    • A judgment for the majority allowing the appeal: "there is no evidence to suggest that prior to the expropriation proceedings, the parties had entered into ... a transaction." The Expropriation Tribunal's decision should not have been reversed.
  • McVey (Re); McVey v United States of America, [1992] 3 SCR 475, 97 DLR (4th) 193.
    • (Extradition; Extradition hearings)
    • A judgment for the majority: "the role of the extradition judge is limited, but important: he or she must determine whether a prima facie case exists that the conduct of the fugitive constitutes an "extradition crime" according to Canadian law." It is unnecessary to determine whether it also constitutes an extradition crime under foreign law.
  • United States v Allard, [1987] 1 SCR 564, 40 DLR (4th) 102.
    • (Extradition; Jurisdiction; Charter of Rights)
    • A judgment for the majority: "a judge acting in an extradition matter is not a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of section 24(1) of the Charter," and section 11(b) of the Charter does not apply in this case because the actions were by a foreign government in a foreign county. Extradition does not per se violate section 7 of the Charter.
  • United States of America v Lépine, [1994] 1 SCR 286, 111 DLR (4th) 31.
    • (Extradition; Jurisdiction)
    • A judgment for the majority: "an extradition judge is not vested with the function of considering the jurisdiction of the requesting state to prosecute the offence." The extradition judge must determine whether the act would be a crime under Canadian law.
  • Chan v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1995] 3 SCR 593, 128 DLR (4th) 213.
    • (Immigration; Convention Refugee)
    • Dissenting: "the Court could not safely decide whether or not there was evidence on which the Board could conclude that the appellant was a member of a particular group. The matter should be remitted back to the Board."
  • Scott v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co, [1989] 1 SCR 1445, 59 DLR (4th) 660.
    • (Insurance; Exemption Clause)
    • A judgment in dissent: "in construing an insurance policy, the courts must be guided by the reasonable expectation and purpose of an ordinary person in entering such contract, and the language employed in the policy is to be given its ordinary meaning." In this case, "insured" did not refer to the appellant’s son.
  • National Bank of Greece (Canada) v Katsikonouris, [1990] 2 SCR 1029, 74 DLR (4th) 197.
    • (Insurance; Misrepresentation)
    • A judgment for the majority: "the insurers cannot refuse to honour this independent contract (the standard mortgage clause) with the hypothecary creditors on discovering that their contract with the hypothecary debtor was issued on the basis of misrepresentations or omissions such that it was null ab initio."
  • Canada Labour Code (Re), [1992] 2 SCR 50, 91 DLR (4th) 449.
    • (International Law; Labour Relations)
    • A judgment for the majority: It is "a necessary consequence of Canada's commitment to policies of international comity and reciprocity ... that sovereign immunity deprives employees of their right to the protection of labour relations laws."
  • Dayco (Canada) Ltd v CAW-Canada, [1993] 2 SCR 230, 102 DLR (4th) 609.
    • (Labour Law; Judicial Review)
    • A judgment for the majority: "in answering the question whether ... a promise in a collective agreement can survive the expiry of the collective agreement in which the promise is made," the arbitrator was not acting within his jurisdiction.
  • KM v HM, [1992] 3 SCR 6, 96 DLR (4th) 289.
    • (Limitations of Actions; Torts; Equity)
    • A judgment for the majority: "Incest is both a tortious assault and a breach of fiduciary duty. The tort claim, although subject to limitations legislation, does not accrue until the plaintiff is reasonably capable of discovering the wrongful nature of the defendant's acts and the nexus between those acts and the plaintiff's injuries ... [However,] incest does not constitute a distinct tort, separate and apart from the intentional tort of assault and battery."
  • QNS Paper Co v Chartwell Shipping Ltd, [1989] 2 SCR 683, 62 DLR (4th) 36.
    • (Maritime Law; Agency)
    • A judgment for the majority: "Under the common law principles of contract and agency, the issue whether an agent contracted personally, or solely in the capacity of agent (in which case only the principal is bound), is a matter of construction of a particular contract. Here, the relevant documents reveal that Chartwell clearly and consistently indicated to QNS that its sole responsibility was as an agent only. Chartwell, therefore, was not personally liable."
  • Canada (Director of Soldier Settlement) v Snider Estate, [1991] 2 SCR 481, 81 DLR (4th) 161.
    • (Mines and Minerals; Land Title)
    • A judgment in dissent: "the rule under the Soldier Settlement Act was that the mines and minerals in lands transferred under the Act continued to vest in the Government of Canada, and this regime should apply in the western provinces as well as the others."
  • Old St Boniface Residents Assn Inc v Winnipeg (City), [1990] 3 SCR 1170, 75 DLR (4th) 385.
    • (Municipal Law; Municipal Corporations)
    • A judgment in dissent: The city of Winnipeg "was precluded from adopting the zoning by-law in question without first amending Plan Winnipeg."
  • Save Richmond Farmland Society v Richmond (Township), [1990] 3 SCR 1213, 75 DLR (4th) 425.
    • (Municipal Law; Municipal Corporations)
    • A concurring judgment: "A closed mind, provided that it is not corrupt, should not disentitle an alderman from participating in the decision-making process in circumstances like the present."
  • 143471 Canada Inc v Québec (AG); Tabah v Québec (AG), [1994] 2 SCR 339, 167 NR 321.
    • (Procedure; Interlocutory Relief)
    • Dissenting: "a prima facie case, irreparable harm and the balance of convenience are the three criteria relevant in determining whether interlocutory relief should be granted." The requirements aren't met in this case and the appeal should be allowed.
  • Canadian Pacific Hotels v Bank of Montreal, [1987] 1 SCR 711, 40 DLR (4th) 385.
    • (Banking; Forged Cheques; Concurrency of Tort and Contract Law)
    • A concurring judgment: "to introduce a wider duty today under the rubric of the tort of negligence would effect the same uncertainties as those perceived by earlier authorities."
  • Boma Manufacturing Ltd v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, [1996] 3 SCR 727, 140 DLR (4th) 463.
    • (Bills of Exchange; Cheques; Conversion)
    • Dissenting on the appeal: "the 114 cheques payable to D Lam, J Lam or JR Lam were payable to non‑existent persons within the meaning of section 20(5) [of the Bills of Exchange Act] and are therefore to be treated as payable to bearer. The respondent bank is accordingly a holder in due course of these cheques and has a complete defence against the action of the appellants."
  • Gould v Yukon Order of Pioneers, [1996] 1 SCR 571, 133 DLR (4th) 449.
    • (Civil Rights; Discrimination; Judicial Review)
    • A concurring judgment: "to attract the anti‑discrimination prohibition [of Yukon's Human Rights Act], a service must thus create a public relationship between the service provider and the service user." In this case the defendant is not engaged in providing services to the public that attracts protection.
  • Godbout v Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 SCR 844, 152 DLR (4th) 577.
    • (Civil Rights; Right to Privacy)
    • A judgment for the majority: "Since municipalities cannot but be described as 'governmental entities,' they are subject to the Canadian Charter ... The right to choose where to establish one’s home falls within the scope of the liberty interest guaranteed by section 7." The residence requirement of the municipality violates section 7 in a manner contrary to the principles of fundamental justice and is not justified under section 1.
  • LAC Minerals Ltd v International Corona Resources Ltd, [1989] 2 SCR 574, 61 DLR (4th) 14.
    • (Commercial Law; Confidentiality; Fiduciary Duty)
    • A concurring judgment: "LAC breached a duty of confidence owed to Corona ... A constructive trust was the only just remedy here ... A fiduciary relationship does not normally arise between arm's length commercial parties. The facts here, however, supported the imposition of a fiduciary obligation ... Finding a breach of fiduciary obligation here would not create uncertainty in commercial law or result in ad hoc morality determining the rules of commercial conduct."
  • Tolofson v Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v Gagnon, [1994] 3 SCR 1022, 120 DLR (4th) 289.
    • (Conflict of Laws; Torts; Traffic Accident)
    • A judgment for the majority: "The nature of Canada's constitutional arrangements ... supports a rule that is certain and that ensures that an act committed in one part of this country will be given the same legal effect throughout the country ... This militates strongly in favour of the lex loci delicti rule."