-
-
Archives
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- June 2007
- April 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
-
Meta
Tag Archives: Supreme Court of Canada
February 2, 2018
SCC Provides Guidance On When Costs Should Be Awarded Against Lawyers Personally
In a decision that was unsettling to many lawyers – Quebec (DCPP) v. Jodoin [2017] 1 SCR 478 – the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a lower court’s decision to award costs against a lawyer personally in a criminal proceeding.
In April 2013, a criminal lawyer Jodoin, was representing ten clients charged with impaired driving, and other charges. There were twelve cases and they were jointly scheduled for a hearing in the Court of Quebec on a motion for disclosure of evidence. On the morning of the hearing, Jodoin had the office of the Superior Court stamp a series of motions for writs of prohibition in which he challenged the jurisdiction of the judge who was to preside over the hearing, alleging bias on the judge’s part. As an experienced criminal lawyer, Jodoin knew that the filing of such motions would result in the immediate postponement of the hearing until the Superior Court had ruled on them.
December 19, 2017
Supreme Court of Canada Orders Estate Trustee to Exercise Discretion to Benefit Beneficiary
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, on December 14, 2017 relating to siblings disputing the entitlement to their mother’s estate.
As early as 1992, Elizabeth and Arthur Cowper-Smith of Victoria, BC, had made it clear that after their deaths, their property would be divided equally among their three children, Gloria, Max and Nathan. Shortly before he died in 1992, Arthur explained such intention to his children to avoid family discord. However, after their father’s death, the children became estranged from each other. Gloria first fell out with Nathan. She wrote him letters demanding that he not raise his voice in her mother’s home or entertain “gay males”. When he went on an overseas trip, Gloria changed the locks to the family home although Nathan’s belongings were still inside. He broke in but Gloria had the police escort him out. Nathan eventually moved to Edmonton.
September 15, 2017
Supreme Court Okays Extradition of Alleged Honour Killers to India
India v. Badesha, 2017 SCC 44
On June 9, 2000, the body of Jaswinder Kaur Sidhu was discovered in a village in the Indian State of Punjab. It is the theory of the Indian government that she was the victim of an honour killing arranged by her uncle, Surgit Singh Badesha (“Badesha”) and her mother, Malkit Kaur Sidhu (“Sidhu”). Both Badesha and Sidhu are Canadian citizens and live in Canada. India sought the extradition of Badesha and Sidhu for the offence of conspiracy to commit murder. The Minister of Justice (“Minister”) ordered their surrenders after receiving assurances from India regarding their treatment if incarcerated, including health, safety and consular access, and after determining in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Extradition Act, that their surrenders would not be unjust or oppressive. A majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that the Minister’s orders were unreasonable and set them aside.
February 16, 2017
Ecuadorean Villagers Continue Legal Battle Against Chevron
Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation 2017 ONSC 135 (CanLII)
The saga continues. This case returned to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for consideration after a hearing at the Supreme Court of Canada. Forty-seven individual plaintiffs in this action, representing approximately 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorian villagers, are suing Chevron and Chevron Canada to attempt to enforce a US$9.5 billion judgment. The enforcement proceedings first came before the Ontario Court where a motions judge – Justice D.M. Brown (now on the Ontario Court of Appeal) – held that the Ontario Court had jurisdiction to recognize and enforce the Ecuadorian judgment but on his own motion stayed the proceedings. The Ontario Court of Appeal over-ruled Justice Brown’s imposition of a discretionary stay but upheld his decision on the jurisdictional issue. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
July 25, 2016
Supreme Court Unwilling to Reject Canada Labour Code’s Unjust Dismissal Scheme
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. 2016 SCC29. This case involved the question of whether an federally regulated employer could terminate the employment of a non-unionized employee without just cause.
In this case, the appellant Joseph Wilson worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (“AECL”) for 4½ years until he was dismissed in November of 2009. He had a clean disciplinary record. Wilson filed an unjust dismissal complaint under the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”) claiming that his dismissal was in reprisal for having filed a complaint of improper procurement practices on the part of AECL. AECL said Wilson was terminated on a non-cause basis and was provided with a generous dismissal package.
July 21, 2016
You want to dismiss an employee? Can’t do it with just a severance pay!
A commentary by Julie Forest, from our Labour and Employment Law Group.
July 21, 2016 — Prior to July 14, 2016, employers under federal jurisdiction — in the transportation, banks and telecommunications fields, as well as certain Crown corporations — could legally dismiss a non-unionized employee without cause, merely by giving notice, just as they can under common law. Such a dismissal was thereby considered “just”. From now on, this practice is no longer allowed.
ILN Today Post
July 19, 2016
Ronald Snyder comments on SCC decision in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
Fogler Rubinoff Partner Ronald Snyder shares his perspective with Canadian Lawyer on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
June 14, 2016
High evidentiary threshold to rebut the presumption of resulting trust
I blogged a few years ago on the old law of presumption of advancement and new law of presumption of resulting trust established in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada Pecore decision. Click here for my previous blog.
The presumption of resulting trust applies in estate contexts when a parent gratuitously transfers his or her assets to an adult child. The court will presume that the child is holding the property in trust for the parent’s estate, unless the child can prove that the transfer was intended to be a gift. In other words, the child has to rebut the presumption of resulting trust if the child claims that the transfer was a gift.
May 9, 2016
SCC: World Bank Group has Immunity in SNC-Lavalin Corruption Trial
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Canada granted jurisdictional immunity to institutional members of the World Bank Group where Canadians had been charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (“CFPOA”) – see World Bank Group v. Wallace, 2016 SCC 15.
The court’s decision was jointly written by Justices Moldaver and Cote. The Supreme Court provided an introduction to its decision by stating that because corruption was a significant obstacle to international development, worldwide cooperation was needed to fight corruption. When international financial organizations, such as the World Bank Group, shared information gathered from informants across the world with the law enforcement agencies of its member states, they achieved what neither could do on their own. In consideration of this cooperation, member states often agreed to grant such international organizations immunities and privileges to preserve their independent operation.
March 7, 2016
Physician-Assisted Death – Alberta Decision
On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada granted a four-month extension (to June 6, 2016) of the suspension of its declaration in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5 (“Carter“), that ss. 14 and 241(b) of the Criminal Code are of no force and effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for competent adult persons that (1) clearly consent to the termination of life, and (2) have a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. At the same time, during the four-month extension, the Court granted an exemption from the prohibition on physician-assisted death to persons that met the Carter criteria so that they may apply to the superior court of their jurisdiction for relief.