| Suggested Supreme Court
of Canada Cases:
You can choose between writing your own "case comment" or "judgment" on cases that been granted leave to appeal but that have not been heard yet or your own "case comment" on recent decisions by the Supreme Court. The cases listed hear are a suggested selection. If you would prefer to write on another case, including cases from other courts, please contact the instructor:
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court
of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 01-00389, dated December 16,
2002, is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Civil - Civil rights -
Elections - Elector bringing action for declaration that ss. 323(1) and
(3), 350-60, and 362 violated ss. 2(b), 2(d) and 3 of the Charter
and were of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution
Act, 1982 - Whether third party advertising spending limits in the
Canada Elections Act 2000 violated the Respondent's Charter
right to freedom of expression - Balance to be struck between political
expression and integrity of the electoral process - Standard of proof
required under s. 1 of the Charter - Canada Elections Act,
S.C. 2000, c. 9
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE 2
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, Number A-1-02, dated November 28, 2002, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause. NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Jurisdiction - Parliamentary privilege - Whether
judicial and administrative tribunals are limited to determining the
categories of privileges over which the legislative branch has exclusive
jurisdiction, or whether they may also scrutinize each individual
exercise of parliamentary privilege - Whether the power to appoint and
manage staff is a category of parliamentary privilege - If the power to
appoint and manage staff is a category of parliamentary privilege,
whether claims of discrimination reduce the scope of that category
permitting review of the Applicants actions - Whether Parliament, by
enacting the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. 33 (2nd Supp.), waived its privilege over employment
matters relating to the categories of employees covered by that Act.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 25, 2001 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
(Mactavish, Chairperson [dissenting] and Roberts and Tomar, Members)
Applicants declared to be subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6
December 4, 2001 Federal Court of Canada
(Tremblay-Lamer J.)
Applicants application for judicial review dismissed
November 28, 2002 Federal Court of Appeal
(Linden, Létourneau and Rothstein [concurring in the result] JJ.A.)
Appeal dismissed
CASE 3
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Number C36111, dated January 27, 2003, is granted. NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Criminal - Criminal Law - Search and Seizure -
Evidence - Use of FLIR technology to photograph heat emanating from
residence of accused - Images produce by FLIR camera might suggest
presence of marihuana grow operation - FLIR surveillance conducted prior
to obtaining warrant and results of surveillance used in Information to
obtain a warrant to search accuseds residence and seize items - Whtehr
use of FLIR constituted a search for puirposes of s. 8 of Charter
- Whether s. 8 of Charter breached - Whether evidence should be
excluded.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE 4
The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA027600, dated October 9, 2002, are granted. NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Civil - Crown liability - Remedies - Whether
Crown breached Charter rights of autistic children by failing to
provide funding for early intensive behavioural treatment - Whether the
Court of Appeal erred in holding that s .15(1) of the Charter
requires the Crown to fund services which are directed at the
amelioration of a disadvantage not created by law - Whether the Court of
Appeal erred in holding that the failure of the Crown to fund
behavioural therapies constituted a unjustifiable infringement of the
equality rights of the petitioners - Whether the Court of Appeal erred
in directing the Crown to fund behavioural treatments for autism rather
than issuing a general declaration of right.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE 5
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-010446-003, dated May 15, 2002, is granted with costs to the applicants in any event of the cause.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Constitutional Law - Schools - Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms,
R.S.Q., ch. C-12 - Charter of French Language, R.S.Q., ch.
C-11 - Discrimination - Whether sections 72, 73 and 75 of the Charter
of the French Language are inconsistent with sections 10 and 12 of
the Charter of Human Rights and Freedom?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE 6
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec (Montreal), Number 500-09-010454-007, dated May 15, 2002, is granted with costs to the applicant in any event of the cause. NATURE OF THE CASE
Constitutional law -- Schools -- Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms -- Charter of French Language, R.S.Q. ch. C-11 -- Whether
the words « provided that that instruction constitutes the major part of
the elementary or secondary instruction received by the child in Canada
» in s. 73(2) of the Charter of the French Language are
unconstitutional in light of s. 23(2) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE 7
The application for leave to appeal of the applicant, Weyerhaeuser Company Limited, from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver), Number CA027999, dated February 27, 2002 and August 19, 2002, is granted with costs in the cause.
The application for leave to appeal of the applicants, the
Minister of Forests and the Attorney General of British Columbia, from
the judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia (Vancouver),
Number CA027999, dated February 27, 2002 and August 19, 2002, is
granted. By agreement, the applicants, the Minister of Forests and the
Attorney General of British Columbia, shall pay the party and party
costs of the Respondents, Council of the Haida Nation and Guujaaw, for
this application for leave to appeal and for the appeal, in any event of
the cause.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Administrative law - Native law - Judicial review - Ministerial decision
- Nature and scope of duty to consult with First Nations - Whether
Provincial Crown in exercising its powers and duties in the management
of natural resources, owe constitutional or fiduciary duties to First
nations to consult and to seek accommodations prior to the determination
of disputed claims of aboriginal rights and title - If such duty exists,
standard of review and applicable tests for determining whether decision
makers have discharged their duty- Whether private persons or
corporations operating on Crown lands, as licensees of the Crown, owe
fiduciary or other legal duties to consult with and accommodate First
Nations who claim Aboriginal rights or title may be infringed by the
licensees' actions and if so, the source, nature and extent of those
duties
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
CASE 8
The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (Calgary), Number 17693, dated May 29, 2002, is granted with costs to The City of Calgary in any event of the cause.
NATURE OF THE CASE
Canadian Charter - Civil - Municipal Law - Municipal corporations
- Municipal powers - Bylaw Regulating Taxi Industry - Bylaw limiting
number of available taxi vehicle plate licenses - Whether municipalities
may be provided with broad general and regulatory powers rather than
with specific powers, functions or activities - Whether power of
municipalities may be circumscribed by what they cannot do rather than
by what they can do - Whether Municipal Government Act, R.S.A.
2000, c. M-26, provides municipalities in Alberta with legislative
authority to pass intra vires bylaws including, but not limited
to, a bylaw limiting the number of taxi vehicle plate licenses to be
issued - Whether bylaw violated ss. 2, 7 or 15 of the Charter by
discriminating on the basis of age and analogous ground or by denying
freedom of association or by denying liberty and security of the person
to pursue a chosen profession.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General) ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Under the Canada Elections Act, a political party must nominate candidates in at least 50 electoral districts in order to obtain, and then to retain, registered party status. Registered parties qualify for several benefits including the right of candidates to issue tax receipts for donations made outside the election period, to transfer unspent election funds to the party and to list their party affiliation on the ballot papers. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the 50-candidate threshold. The trial judge held that the threshold was inconsistent with s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that this infringement could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal held that the 50-candidate threshold was not inconsistent with s. 3 of the Charter, except to the extent that it denied candidates of non-registered parties the right to identify their party affiliation on the election ballot. Held: The appeal should be allowed. Sections 24(2), 24(3) and 28(2) of the Canada Elections Act are declared unconstitutional. The declaration of unconstitutionality is suspended for 12 months.
CASE 10 Heard - 2003: March 18; Judgment Delivered - 2003: September 19.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA The appellant, a Manitoba Métis, was convicted of hunting deer out of season. He had been hunting for food on unoccupied Crown land. His appeals to the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench and the Manitoba Court of Appeal were based solely on the defence that, as a Métis, he was immune from conviction under the Wildlife Act regulations in so far as they infringed on his right to hunt for food under para. 13 of the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement (NRTA). This provision stipulates that the provincial laws respecting game apply to the Indians subject to the continuing right of the Indians to hunt, trap and fish for food on unoccupied Crown lands. Both appeals were unsuccessful. The issue in this appeal was whether the Métis are "Indians" under the hunting rights provision of the NRTA. Held: The appeal should be dismissed. The NRTA is a constitutional document which must be read generously within its contextual and historical confines and yet in such a way that its purpose is not overshot. Here, the appellant is not entitled to benefit from the protection accorded to "Indians" in the NRTA. First, the NRTA's historical context suggested that the term "Indians" did not include the Métis. The historical documentation indicated that, in Manitoba, the Métis had been treated as a different group from "Indians" for purposes of delineating rights and protections. Second, the common usage of the term "Indian" in 1930 did not encompass the Métis. The terms "Indian" and "half-breed" had been used to refer to separate and distinguishable groups of people in Manitoba from the mid-19th century through the period in which the NRTA was negotiated and enacted. The location of para. 13 in the NRTA under the heading "Indian Reserves" further supports this interpretation. Third, the purpose of para. 13 of the NRTA was to ensure respect for the Crown's obligations to "Indians" with respect to hunting rights, who were viewed as requiring special protection and assistance. This view did not extend to the Métis, who were considered more independent and less in need of Crown protection. A requirement for "continuity of language" should not be imposed on the Constitution as a whole and, in any event, such an interpretation would not support the contention that the term "Indians" should include the Métis. The principle that ambiguities should be resolved in favour of Aboriginal peoples is inapplicable as the historical documentation was sufficient to support the view that the term "Indians" in para. 13 of the NRTA was not meant to encompass the Métis. Nor does the "living tree" doctrine expand the historical purpose of para. 13; while constitutional provisions are intended to provide "a continuing framework for the legitimate exercise of governmental power", the Court is not free to invent new obligations foreign to the original
CASE 11 Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General) Heard - 2003: April 10: Judgment Delivered - 2003: July 17.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO The respondent was named representative plaintiff of a class of disabled veterans who received pensions and other benefits from the Crown under three different statutes. These funds were administered by the Department of Veteran Affairs ("DVA") because the veterans were deemed incapable of managing their money. These funds were rarely invested or credited with interest until 1990, when the DVA began paying interest on the accounts. But Parliament chose to limit the Crown's liability for past interest by enacting s. 5.1(4) of the Department of Veteran Affairs Act which provides that no claim shall be made after the coming into force of the provision for or on account of interest on moneys held or administered by the Minister during any period prior to January 1, 1990 pursuant to any of the three relevant statutes. The class sued the Crown, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and claiming that the s. 5.1(4) bar was inoperative under the Canadian Bill of Rights, because it was inconsistent with the right not to be deprived of the enjoyment of property except by due process of law (s. 1(a)) and the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of one's rights and obligations (s. 2(e)). The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the Crown owed a fiduciary duty to the disabled veterans, and so was obliged to either invest the funds on their behalf, or pay interest, and that s. 5.1(4) of the Act was inoperative under the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. Held: The appeal should be allowed. Where federal legislation conflicts with the protections of the
Bill of Rights, unless the conflicting legislation expressly declares
that it operates notwithstanding the Bill of Rights, the Bill of
Rights applies and the legislation is inoperative. The Bill of
Rights protects only rights that existed in 1960, prior to its
passage. Section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights applies only to guarantee the fundamental justice of proceedings before any tribunal or administrative body that determine individual rights and obligations. It does not impose on Parliament the duty to provide a hearing before the enactment of legislation.
|