COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO"

Transcription

1 BETWEEN CITATION: Abou-Elmaati v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONCA 95 DATE: DOCKET: C52120 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Sharpe, Watt and Karakatsanis JJ.A. Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, Badr Abou-Elmaati, Samira Al-Shallash and Rasha Abou-Elmaati Plaintiffs (Respondents/Appellants on Cross-Appeal) and The Attorney General of Canada, John Doe and Jane Doe Defendant (Appellant/Respondent on Cross-Appeal) Robert MacKinnon and Zoe Oxaal, for the appellant M. Philip Tunley and Andrea Gonsalves, for the respondents Heard: December 14, 2010 On appeal from the order of Justice P.M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 8, 2010, with reasons reported at 101 O.R. (3d) 424. Sharpe J.A.: [1] This appeal arises from civil actions brought in the Superior Court against Canada by individuals who allege that Canada was complicit in their torture and ill-treatment while they were in the custody of foreign governments and that their rights under the

2 Page: 2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. The issue is whether s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5 (CEA), conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal Court of Canada to review and rule on Canada s claims for privilege on the grounds of national security, national defence and international relations, is constitutionally infirm on the ground that it interferes with the core jurisdiction of the Superior Court, protected by the Constitution Act, 1867, s. 96. Facts [2] In 2006, the respondent Elmaati and members of his family commenced an action against Canada, claiming, among other things, compensatory damages for alleged breaches of his Charter rights. [3] Canada disclosed to the respondents counsel approximately 500 documents, of which 290 were in redacted form. Some of the redactions were made pursuant to s. 38 of the CEA on the grounds that the excluded information was injurious to national security, national defence and international relations. Canada later asserted that it had inadvertently disclosed one document without redactions, gave notice under s. 38 not to disclose the document, and asked the respondents counsel to return it. The respondents counsel disputed that the document had been disclosed inadvertently and that it was subject to privilege and asserted that the s. 38 notice was void. [4] The respondents moved in the Superior Court action for an order requiring production of documents without redaction and filed a Notice of Constitutional Question putting in issue the constitutional validity or applicability of s. 38 of the CEA. Canada

3 Page: 3 raised a preliminary objection to the respondents production motion, arguing that s. 38 deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and brought a Federal Court application to determine the claims of privilege pursuant to s. 38. Reasons of the motion judge [5] The motion judge upheld Canada s preliminary objection and dismissed the respondents motion for production. He held that s. 38 is constitutionally valid to the extent that it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal Court to determine claims of privilege on grounds of national security, national defence, and international relations at the pre-trial stage. [6] However, the motion judge went on to declare that where a claim is made to enforce the constitution (including the Charter) in a civil proceeding, to the extent that s. 38 precludes a judge of the Superior Court of Justice at the trial of an action or the hearing of an application from judicially reviewing a claim of Crown privilege, it is of no force or effect and must be read down accordingly. Proceedings in the Federal Court [7] Pending this appeal, Canada proceeded with its s. 38 application in the Federal Court to determine the privilege issues in relation to the respondents request for pre-trial production. On November 8, 2010, Mosley J. delivered comprehensive reasons dealing with Canada s s. 38 claims of privilege: Canada (A.G.) v. Almaki, 2010 FC Mosley J. upheld some of Canada s s. 38 claims but rejected many others.

4 Page: 4 [8] Mosley J. also dealt with the allegedly inadvertently disclosed document. He held that disclosure of this document was the product of a series of errors in the internal government review and redaction process and that as the disclosure was not deliberate, there was no waiver of the claimed privilege. He upheld the claims of privilege with respect to certain redacted parts of the document but rejected claims of privilege with respect to other parts. [9] The respondents appear not to take issue with Mosley J. s order and they have not exercised their right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal. Appeal and Cross-Appeal [10] Canada appeals the declaration that s. 38 is of no force or effect to the extent that it deprives a Superior Court judge of the jurisdiction to review a claim of Crown privilege based on national security, national defence, and international relations at trial. The respondents cross-appeal the dismissal of their motion for production and the motion judge s determination that s. 38 is valid at the pre-trial stage. Canada moves to quash the cross-appeal with respect to the allegedly inadvertently disclosed document. Issues [11] The issues arising on the appeal and cross-appeal are: 1. Did the motion judge err in dismissing the respondents pre-trial motion for production and upholding the constitutional validity of s. 38 at the pre-trial stage?

5 Page: 5 2. Did the motion judge err in declaring that s. 38 was of no force or effect to the extent that it deprived the Superior Court of the power to decide claims of privilege based on national security, national defence, and international relations at a trial involving a claim to enforce the constitution, including the Charter at trial? 3. Should the cross-appeal with respect to the allegedly inadvertently disclosed document be quashed or dismissed? Analysis 1. Did the motion judge err in dismissing the respondents motion for production and upholding the constitutional validity of s. 38 at the pre-trial stage? [12] The motion that led to this appeal was one for pre-trial disclosure and I will deal first with the issue raised by the respondents cross-appeal. [13] The respondents do not dispute that s. 38 confers jurisdiction on the Federal Court to determine the public interest immunity claims asserted by Canada in this proceeding. However, the respondents assert that s. 38 is constitutionally infirm insofar as it deprives the Superior Court of jurisdiction to assess and determine those same claims. To succeed in that assertion, the respondents must demonstrate that s. 38 violates the Superior Court s jurisdiction that is constitutionally protected by s. 96. [14] In Reference re Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act (N.S.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 186 at para. 74, McLachlin J. re-stated as follows the three-part test for determining whether the conferral of jurisdiction on an inferior court or administrative

6 Page: 6 tribunal deprives a s. 96 court of its constitutionally protected jurisdiction, initially laid down by Dickson J. in Re Residential Tenancies Act, 1979, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 714 at pp : (1) does the power conferred "broadly conform" to a power or jurisdiction exercised by a superior, district or county court at the time of Confederation? (2) if so, is it a judicial power? (3) if so, is the power either subsidiary or ancillary to a predominantly administrative function or necessarily incidental to such a function? [15] McEvoy v. New Brunswick (A.G.), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 704 holds that s. 96 applies to limit Parliament as well as the provincial legislatures from removing or devolving protected powers to tribunals or statutory courts. [16] It is common ground that this case falls to be decided on the first branch of the Residential Tenancies test. In MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725 at para. 15, the first branch was refined to relate to what Lamer C.J. described as the core or inherent jurisdiction which is integral to their operations. If the power or jurisdiction at issue falls within that core, it cannot be removed from the superior courts by either level of government, without amending the Constitution. [17] The question, then, is this: was the power or jurisdiction to review claims of Crown privilege on grounds of international relations, national defence and national security exercised by superior, district or county courts at the time of Confederation and was that power or jurisdiction essential to the existence of a superior court of inherent jurisdiction and to the preservation of its foundational role within our legal system?

7 Page: 7 [18] As the motion judge held, at para. 99, there is a long line of authority to the effect that at common law, there was no pre-trial discovery against the Crown: Tomline v. The Queen (1879), 4 Ex. D. 252; Quebec (A.G.) and Keable v. Canada (A.G.), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 218 at pp ; Waverley (Village) v. Nova Scotia (Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs) (1993), 16 C.P.C. (3d) 64 (N.S.S.C.) at paras ; Crombie v. The King (1922), 52 O.L.R. 72 (C.A.) at p. 77. As no discovery of any kind was available against the Crown at the time of Confederation, the issue of public interest privilege could not have arisen until legislation enacted in the 1950s made discovery against the Crown in right of Canada possible (Crown Liability Act, S.C , c. 30, s. 14; Crown Liability (Provincial Court) Regulations, P.C , ss. 7-8; Peter W. Hogg & Patrick J. Monahan, Liability of the Crown, 3d ed. (Scarborough: Thomson Canada, 2000) at pp ). [19] After it became possible to obtain discovery against the Crown, the courts adopted a highly deferential approach to claims of Crown privilege. In particular, deference to ministerial claims of privilege on grounds of national security was absolute. In Conway v. Rimmer, [1968] 1 All E.R. 874 (H.L.), Lord Morris stated at p. 890: If a responsible Minister stated that production of a document would jeopardise public safety, it is inconceivable that any court would make an order for its production. See also Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1984] 3 All E.R. 935 (H.L.) at p. 944: the judicial process is unsuitable for reaching decisions on national security ; and at p. 952: National security is the responsibility of the executive government...it is

8 Page: 8 par excellence a non-justiciable question. Carey v. Ontario, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 637 adopted a liberal approach to Ontario s common law regime and held that where class privilege was claimed over cabinet deliberations, courts must weigh the public interest in non-disclosure against the public interest in the proper administration of justice. The court could inspect the documents, balance the competing interests, and where appropriate, order their production. However, LaForest J. pointed out, at p. 671, that a more deferential approach pertained where privilege was claimed on grounds of national security: If the certificate had particularized that their divulgence should be withheld on the ground, for example, that they relate or would affect such matters as national security or diplomatic relations, that would be another matter. If the certificate was properly framed, the court might in such a case well agree to their being withheld even without inspection... For on such issues, it is often unwise even for members of the judiciary to be aware of their contents, and the period in which they should remain secret may be very long. [Citation omitted.] [20] In 1970, the common law relating to claims by the Crown in right of Canada to privilege in any court was codified by the Federal Court Act, s. 41, R.S.C. 1970, c. 10 (2nd Supp). With respect to claims of Crown privilege, the court was permitted to examine documents and order disclosure if it concluded that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the claimed public interest. However, s. 41(2) provided that where the claim was that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to, inter alia, international relations, national defence or national security, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of

9 Page: 9 the document by the court. This provision withstood a constitutional challenge in Commission des droits de la personne v. Canada (A.G.), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 215, although there the argument was based on division of powers rather than s. 96. I note as well that in Babcock v. Canada (A.G.), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3, the Supreme Court held that s. 39 of the CEA, depriving any court of the power to review a claim of privilege in relation to confidences of the Privy Council, did not deprive a s. 96 court of its core jurisdiction as the provision did not alter or remove any jurisdiction that was exercised in [21] It was not until 1982 and the enactment of s of the CEA, the predecessor of the current s. 38, by S.C , c. 111, s. 4 that it became possible for a court to review a claim of Crown privilege based upon international relations, national defence or national security. The 1982 amendment responded to a recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, chaired by Mr. Justice D.C. McDonald and commonly referred to as the McDonald Commission, that there should be a more liberal approach to disclosure and that the task of assessing national security claims be assigned to the Federal Court. As Canada points out in its submission, s. 38 reflects a significant liberalization of the law of Crown privilege, allowing for a broad regime of judicial review, albeit within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court, with respect to privilege claims based on international relations and national defence or security.

10 Page: 10 [22] The operation and effect of the scheme established by s. 38 for the determination of claims made by the Government of Canada for privilege based upon national security, national defence, and international relations may be briefly described. [23] A person, usually a government official, involved in litigation is required to notify the Attorney General if asked to produce information sensitive or potentially injurious to national security, national defence or international relations. The effect of that notice is to prohibit disclosure unless and until disclosure is authorized either by the Attorney General or by a judge of the Federal Court pursuant to the s. 38 scheme. [24] If the Attorney General does not authorize disclosure, the issue is resolved by the Federal Court, either on application by the Attorney General seeking to protect the information or by the party seeking disclosure. That application is decided by the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or a Federal Court judge designated to conduct s. 38 hearings. [25] The judge hearing the application decides whether a hearing is required, who should be given notice and who should be given the opportunity to make submissions. The judge has access to unredacted versions of the documents at issue but the party seeking disclosure has access only to the redacted version and the hearing is held in camera. The Attorney General has the right to make ex parte submissions. [26] The designated judge may appoint amicus curiae and in this case, Mosley J. did appoint two amicus to assist him in the determination of the claim of privilege.

11 Page: 11 [27] The designated judge also has the discretion to invite the comments of the person (usually a judge) presiding at the proceeding to which the information relates and that person may provide the designated judge with a report dealing with anything relating to the proceeding that might be of assistance to the designated judge. [28] A three-part test is applied to determine the s. 38 application (see Canada (A.G.) v. Ribic, [2005] 1 F.C.R. 33 (F.C.A.) at paras ; Canada (A.G.) v. Khawaja, [2008] 4 F.C.R. 3 (F.C.A.) at para. 8): 1. Is the information sought relevant to the proceeding? If no, disclosure is not ordered. If yes, then; 2. Will disclosure of the information be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations? If no, the information should be disclosed. If yes, then; 3. Does the public interest in disclosure outweigh the public interest in prohibiting disclosure? [29] The designated judge has the discretion to craft an appropriate order ordering partial disclosure, disclosure on conditions or disclosure of a summary of the information. [30] There is an appeal as of right to the Federal Court of Appeal and a further appeal, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada. [31] I assess the relevant historical context and the operation and effect of s. 38 as follows. Pre-trial discovery was not available against the Crown at Confederation and even after discovery against the Crown was made possible by statute, claims of crown

12 Page: 12 privilege based upon international relations, national security and national defence were effectively immune from judicial review or scrutiny. [32] I cannot accept the respondents contention that Canada is using s. 38 to be able to violate the Constitution with impunity. Section 38 represents a liberalization of the law of Crown privilege, conferring rights of judicial review that were not available until the predecessor of s. 38 was enacted in In this case, s. 38 has allowed the respondents to have a judicial assessment of Canada s public interest immunity claims, an assessment they appear to accept as having been thorough and fair and against which they have not exercised their right of appeal. I note that Mosley J. specifically found, at para. 112: There is no evidence in the record before me to support the respondents suggestion that the Attorney General has attempted to prevent disclosure of embarrassing information, or information unfavourable to the government's defence in the underlying civil action, through unwarranted national security claims. [33] Section 38 does not remove anything that falls within the core jurisdiction of the Superior Court and that is protected by s. 96. To the contrary, s. 38 provides for a more generous form of judicial review albeit in another court of claims of crown privilege than was ever available in the Superior Court at common law. [34] I also agree with the motion judge that from the perspective of protecting the Superior Court s core jurisdiction, there is little or no practical difference between delegating issues of pre-trial production and disclosure to a Master and the regime that

13 Page: 13 assigns that responsibility to the Federal Court. Under either scheme, issues of production and disclosure are determined before the trial by a judicial officer other than the trial judge and the trial judge is left to decide the case on the merits on the basis of the record that has been defined and refined in the pre-trial procedure. [35] I therefore conclude under the first branch of the test for an infringement of s. 96 that in relation to pre-trial production and discovery, the jurisdiction that is conferred exclusively on the Federal Court by s. 38 did not fall within the power or jurisdiction exercised by the Superior Court at the time of Confederation. It follows that in relation to pre-trial discovery, s. 38 does not deprive the Superior Court of the core jurisdiction protected by s. 96 of the Constitution Act, Did the motion judge err in declaring that s. 38 was of no force or effect to the extent that it deprived the Superior Court of the power to decide claims of privilege based on national security, national defence, and international relations at a trial involving a claim to enforce the constitution, including the Charter? [36] The motion judge held that the Superior Court s civil jurisdiction to provide remedies for constitutional violations fell within the core jurisdiction protected by s. 96. He held that it followed that at trial, the Superior Court must retain jurisdiction to rule on claims of privilege based upon national security, national defence and international relations and that to the extent s. 38 provides otherwise, it is of no force or effect. [37] For the purposes of this appeal, I will assume, without deciding, that in relation to s. 96, the issue of the Superior Court s constitutionally-protected jurisdiction to provide

14 Page: 14 remedies for constitutional violations at trial is distinguishable from the issue of pre-trial production and disclosure that I have just considered. [38] In my view, it was unnecessary for the motion judge to have ruled on this question in this case. The record in this case deals only with pre-trial discovery. In virtually all cases, issues of privilege will be resolved at the pre-trial discovery phase. As the Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to pre-trial claims of privilege and as the parties have the right to participate in the s. 38 proceeding before the Federal Court and to appeal any order to the Federal Court of Appeal, and may apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court s determination of the issue of privilege will amount to res judicata. It is by no means clear exactly how or why privilege issues will arise that not were resolved at the pre-trial discovery phase of the action but that will have to be resolved at trial. The record does not provide a concrete factual basis for making an important constitutional ruling and neither the motion judge nor the respondents have provided us with hypothetical examples. [39] It is not only unnecessary but also usually unwise to attempt to decide constitutional issues in the absence of a concrete factual situation. As this court stated in Clark v. Peterborough Utilities Commission (1998), 40 O.R. (3d) 409 at p. 413, citing Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97 at p. 111, courts should only rule on constitutional issues when it is necessary to do so.

15 Page: 15 [40] The present case is distinguishable from R. v. Ahmad (2009), 257 C.C.C. (3d) 135 (Ont. S.C.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. granted (sub nom. R. v. F.A.), (18 June 2009), where Dawson J. held that s. 38 was of no force or effect to the extent that it vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Court to determine privilege claims based upon international relations, national security and defence in respect of a criminal trial in the Superior Court. First, that was a criminal case where such issues are not resolved before trial and the trial judge was confronted with a live dispute as to how and where claims of Crown privilege should be resolved. Second, the argument that s. 38 was of no force or effect to the extent that it deprived the Superior Court of jurisdiction to determine claims of Crown privilege was based primarily on the accused s right to a fair trial guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter and, as Dawson J. specifically noted at para. 40, the accused did not rely on the jurisprudence surrounding s. 96 of the Constitution Act, [41] Here, the motion judge did not have a concrete factual situation giving rise to the issue and, in my respectful view, in the absence of a concrete case, he erred in declaring s. 38 to be of no force or effect in relation to privilege claims advanced at trial. [42] Accordingly, I would set aside that portion of the motion judge s order and leave that issue to be decided if and when it arises upon a proper factual foundation where a litigant can present a concrete case that s. 38 interferes with the core jurisdiction of the Superior Court to remedy a breach of the constitution.

16 Page: Should the cross-appeal with respect to the allegedly inadvertently disclosed document be quashed or dismissed? [43] As I accept Canada s submission with respect to pre-trial production and disclosure, it follows that the issue of the allegedly inadvertently disclosed document was properly before Mosley J. in the s. 38 proceedings. Mosley J. dealt with the issues arising in connection with that document. Accordingly, it not necessary for us to consider Canada s motion to quash the cross-appeal from that aspect of the motion judge s order and I would simply dismiss that aspect of the cross-appeal. Conclusion Accordingly, I would allow Canada s appeal, set aside paragraph 2 of the motion judge s order and dismiss the cross-appeal. [44] If the parties are unable to agree as to the costs of the appeal, they make brief written submissions. Canada shall submit its submissions within 15 days of the release of this judgment and the respondents are to submit their submissions within ten days thereafter. RELEASED: February 7, 2011 Robert J. Sharpe J.A. I agree David Watt J.A. I agree A. Karakatsanis J.A.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL

More information

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue

Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have

More information

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166)

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51877) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Paul Whalen

More information

DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER

DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Page 1 DRUNKENNESS AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER Criminal Law Conference 2005 Halifax, Nova Scotia Prepared by: Joel E. Pink, Q.C. Joel E. Pink, Q.C. & Associates 1583 Hollis Street, Ste 300 Halifax, NS B3J 2P8

More information

HEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000

HEARD: Before the Honourable Justice A. David MacAdam, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 25 & June 15, 2000 Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission) v. Sam's Place et al. Date: [20000803] Docket: [SH No. 163186] 1999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA BETWEEN: THE NOVA SCOTIA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION APPLICANT

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent

More information

Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002

Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 SCC 2 Mansour Ahani Appellant v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada Respondents

More information

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. The following is the judgment delivered by The Court: I. Introduction [1] Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen,

More information

Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act

Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act Bill C-337 Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION April 2017 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925

More information

5.9 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS

5.9 PRIVATE PROSECUTIONS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS GUIDELINE OF THE DIRECTOR ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(3)(c) OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT March 1, 2014 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 2

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45 APPEAL HEARD: February 7, 2018 JUDGMENT RENDERED: October 26, 2018 DOCKET: 37207 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Justine Awashish

More information

A View From the Bench Administrative Law

A View From the Bench Administrative Law A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi

More information

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants. and

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants. and CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. Date: 20081217 Docket: A-149-08 Citation: 2008 FCA 401 BETWEEN: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants and

More information

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON

HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON CITATION: Whitters v. Furtive Networks Inc., 2012 ONSC 2159 COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-420068 DATE: 20120405 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: HALEY WHITTERS and JULIE HENDERSON - and - FURTIVE NETWORKS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. LeBel J. SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16 [2006] S.C.J. No. 16 DATE: 20060427 DOCKET: 31020 BETWEEN: Rita Graveline Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH

More information

Indexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Indexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) Mounted Police Association of Ontario/Association de la Police Montée de l'ontario and B.C. Mounted Police Professional Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Royal Canadian

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Vellone, 2011 ONCA 785 DATE: 20111214 DOCKET: C50397 MacPherson, Simmons and Blair JJ.A. BETWEEN Her Majesty the Queen Ex Rel. The Regional Municipality of York

More information

Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin, Sharpe, Cronk and Blair, JJ.A. December 9, 2014.

Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin, Sharpe, Cronk and Blair, JJ.A. December 9, 2014. Royal Bank of Canada (plaintiff/appellant) v. Phat Trang and Phuong Trang a.k.a. Phuong Thi Trang (defendants) and Bank of Nova Scotia (respondent) (C57306; 2014 ONCA 883) Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada

More information

The Future of Administrative Justice. Current Issues in Tribunal Independence

The Future of Administrative Justice. Current Issues in Tribunal Independence The Future of Administrative Justice Current Issues in Tribunal Independence I will begin with the caveat that one always has to enter whenever one embarks on a discussion of Canadian administrative justice,

More information

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30. v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION OF PROVINCIAL COURT

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30. v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION OF PROVINCIAL COURT PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30 Date: 20180831 Docket: 2793700 & 2793703 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Nuttall, 2016 BCSC 73 Regina v. John Stuart Nuttall and Amanda Marie Korody Date: 20160111 Docket: 26392 Registry: Vancouver Restriction on Publication:

More information

REVIEW REPORT FI December 29, 2015 Department of Finance

REVIEW REPORT FI December 29, 2015 Department of Finance Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Nova Scotia Report of the Commissioner (Review Officer) Catherine Tully REVIEW REPORT FI-13-28 December 29, 2015 Department of Finance Summary: The

More information

The Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201. Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

The Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201. Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights The Constitutional Validity of Bill S-201 Presentation to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Professor Bruce Ryder Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 22 November 2016 I am pleased

More information

Indexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al.

Indexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al. Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia (appellant) v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Lucien Comeau, Lynn Connors and Her Majesty the

More information

Research ranc. i1i~ EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION. Philip Rosen Law and Government Division. 22 February 1989

Research ranc. i1i~ EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION. Philip Rosen Law and Government Division. 22 February 1989 Mini-Review MR-29E EQUALITY RIGHTS: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION Philip Rosen Law and Government Division 22 February 1989 A i1i~ ~10000 ~i;~ I Bibliothèque du Parlement Research ranc The Research

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Sriskandarajah v. United States of America, 2012 SCC 70 DATE: 20121214 DOCKET: 34009, 34013 BETWEEN: Suresh Sriskandarajah Appellant and United States of America, Minister

More information

Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

More information

Research Papers. Contents

Research Papers. Contents ` Legislative Library and Research Services Research Papers WHEN DO ONTARIO ACTS AND REGULATIONS COME INTO FORCE? Research Paper B31 (revised March 2018) Revised by Tamara Hauerstock Research Officer Legislative

More information

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA

Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL. JOHN McGOWAN and CAROLYN McGOWAN THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA Page: 1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND COURT OF APPEAL Citation: McGowan v. Bank of Nova Scotia 2011 PECA 20 Date: 20111214 Docket: S1-CA-1202 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND:

More information

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 194/16 BEFORE: S. Martel: Vice-Chair HEARING: January 21, 2016 at Toronto Oral DATE OF DECISION: March 23, 2016 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2016 ONWSIAT

More information

Mandat de perquisition Ordonnance de scellé Demande de révision en vertu de 487.3(4) C.cr. Révision effectuée ex parte et in camera COURT OF QUEBEC

Mandat de perquisition Ordonnance de scellé Demande de révision en vertu de 487.3(4) C.cr. Révision effectuée ex parte et in camera COURT OF QUEBEC World Tamil Movement c. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 QCCQ 7254 Mandat de perquisition Ordonnance de scellé Demande de révision en vertu de 487.3(4) C.cr. Révision effectuée ex parte et in camera CANADA

More information

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER November 22, 2005 2005-007 NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER REPORT 2005-007 Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat Summary: The Applicant applied under the Access

More information

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF

More information

THE ASSINIBOINE SOUTH TEACHERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE MANITOBA TEACHERS' SOCIETY (Applicant) Respondent. - and -

THE ASSINIBOINE SOUTH TEACHERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THE MANITOBA TEACHERS' SOCIETY (Applicant) Respondent. - and - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Philp, Twaddle and Kroft JJ.A. Citation: Assiniboine South Teachers' Association v. Assiniboine South School Division No. 3, 2000 MBCA 9 Date: 20000616 Docket:

More information

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br...

2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Br... Page 1 of 7 COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Get Acceptance Corporation v. British Columbia (Registrar of Mortgage Brokers), 2008 BCCA 404 Get Acceptance Corporation and Keith

More information

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F July 7, 2017 EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE. Case File Number F5536

ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F July 7, 2017 EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE. Case File Number F5536 ALBERTA OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER ORDER F2017-57 July 7, 2017 EDMONTON POLICE SERVICE Case File Number F5536 Office URL: www.oipc.ab.ca Summary: On June 16, 2010, the Criminal

More information

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD ONTARIO LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD 2091-03-R United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 175, Applicant v. MGI Packers Inc.; Maple Freezers Limited; Continental Trading Company Limited; Continental Meat

More information

Public Interest Immunity after Bill C-36

Public Interest Immunity after Bill C-36 Public Interest Immunity after Bill C-36 Hamish Stewarl* 1. Introduction Bill C-36, the omnibus anti-terrorism legislation enacted in response to the events of September 11, 2001, came into force in December

More information

Chapter 6 Canada s Conviction Review Process

Chapter 6 Canada s Conviction Review Process Chapter 6 Canada s Conviction Review Process 1. Introduction David Milgaard was investigated by the Saskatoon Police and the RCMP for the murder of Gail Miller. He was prosecuted by a representative of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver

More information

The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott

The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott The Supreme Court of Canada and Hate Publications: Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott Tom Irvine Ministry of Justice, Constitutional Law Branch Human Rights Code Amendments May 5, 2014 Saskatoon

More information

Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION November 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS Bill C-10: Criminal Code Amendments (Mental Disorder) PREFACE...

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Municipal Parking Corporation v. Toronto (City), 2007 ONCA 647 DATE: 20070921 DOCKET: C45551 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO WEILER, ROSENBERG and SIMMONS JJ.A. BETWEEN: MUNICIPAL PARKING CORPORATION

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts

More information

And In The Matter of [...] Indexed As: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Re. Federal Court Mactavish, J. December 6, 2012.

And In The Matter of [...] Indexed As: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Re. Federal Court Mactavish, J. December 6, 2012. In The Matter of an Application by [...] for Warrants Pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-23 (2012 FC 1437) And In The Matter of [...] Indexed

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: DOCKET: 33714

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: DOCKET: 33714 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: 20110216 DOCKET: 33714 BETWEEN: Marko Miljevic Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Fish,

More information

A.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R.

A.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R. A.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R. Ontario Court of Appeal Cronk, Gillese and MacFarland, JJ.A.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION. Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION. Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and- S.C.C. No.01511 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: Clarke, C.J.N.S., Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. RAYMOND MARC LePAGE, -and- Appellant HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, Respondent E.A.N. Blackburn

More information

Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board)

Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) Page 1 Case Name: Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) Cuddy Chicks Limited, appellant; v. Ontario Labour Relations Board and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local

More information

INDEPENDENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

INDEPENDENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CRIMINAL MATTERS INDEPENDENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Foundation Freedom and independence form my character. - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) The role of the Attorney General in the prosecution of

More information

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario

Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Introductory Guide to Civil Litigation in Ontario Table of Contents INTRODUCTION This guide contains an overview of the Canadian legal system and court structure as well as key procedural and substantive

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant. CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE

More information

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No

Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: Action No Alberta (Attorney General) v. Krushell, 2003 ABQB 252 Date: 20030318 Action No. 0203 19075 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON IN THE MATTER OF the Freedom of Information

More information

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.

More information

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ.

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT. HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT COURT FILE NO.: 29/07, 30/07 DATE: 20090306 HACKLAND R.S.J., SWINTON and KARAKATSANIS JJ. B E T W E E N: COMMISSIONER AND JANE DOE, AND B E T W E E N:

More information

A.G. Ontario v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. William Tetley* II. The Constituents to Federal Court Jurisdiction over Admiralty

A.G. Ontario v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd. William Tetley* II. The Constituents to Federal Court Jurisdiction over Admiralty 1989] CHRONIQUE DE JURISPRUDENCE 1099 A.G. Ontario v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd William Tetley* In A.G. Ontario v. Pembina Exploration Canada Ltd,I the S.C.C. held that an Ontario Small Claims Court

More information

IMPORTANT EXPLANATORY NOTE:

IMPORTANT EXPLANATORY NOTE: ELLYNLAW.COM IMPORTANT EXPLANATORY NOTE: The following article was published in 1994 in the National Law Journal http://www.law.com. Although the legal principles in it are still applicable, there has

More information

PUBLICATION BANS FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015

PUBLICATION BANS FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 DOCUMENT TITLE: PUBLICATION BANS NATURE OF DOCUMENT: PRACTICE NOTE FIRST ISSUED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 LAST SUBSTANTIVE REVISION: EDITED / DISTRIBUTED: NOVEMBER 23, 2015 NOTE: THIS POICY DOCUMENT IS TO BE

More information

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:

More information

Police Newsletter, July 2015

Police Newsletter, July 2015 1. Supreme Court of Canada rules on the constitutionality of warrantless cell phone and other digital device search and privacy. 2. On March 30, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled police officers

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and S.C.C. File No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent

More information

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C. 17 (2 nd SUPP.)

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ACT, R.S.C. 1985, C. 17 (2 nd SUPP.) Date: 20170222 Docket: T-1000-15 Citation: 2017 FC 214 Ottawa, Ontario, February 22, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McDonald IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

More information

DECISION 2018 NSUARB 142 M08699 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT. - and -

DECISION 2018 NSUARB 142 M08699 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT. - and - DECISION 2018 NSUARB 142 M08699 NOVA SCOTIA UTILITY AND REVIEW BOARD IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT - and - IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL by DAVID MACINNES from the Decision of Kings County

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Between: Date: 20120215 Docket: CA039639 Ingrid Andrea Franzke And Appellant (Petitioner) Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal Respondent (Defendant) Before: The Honourable

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520 DATE: 20150709 DOCKET: C59661 BETWEEN Laskin, Lauwers and Hourigan JJ.A.

More information

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d appel de l aménagement local

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d appel de l aménagement local Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d appel de l aménagement local ISSUE DATE: August 27, 2018 CASE NO(S).: MM160054 The Ontario Municipal Board (the OMB ) is continued under the name Local Planning

More information

THE ROAD TO THE PROMISED LAND RUNS PAST CONWAY: ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND CHARTER REMEDIES

THE ROAD TO THE PROMISED LAND RUNS PAST CONWAY: ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND CHARTER REMEDIES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND CHARTER REMEDIES 783 THE ROAD TO THE PROMISED LAND RUNS PAST CONWAY: ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND CHARTER REMEDIES RANJAN K. AGARWAL * I. INTRODUCTION In the 30 years since

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel, 2015 ONCA 205 DATE: 20150326 DOCKET: C59338 and C59339 Laskin, Simmons and Watt JJ.A. Intact Insurance Company and Yaroslava

More information

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN

A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FEDERAL CROWN Martin C.Ward Introduction: The Crown could not be sued at common law. The Courts were creations of the Crown and as such it could not be compelled

More information

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND)

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) A CHANGING LANDSCAPE IN CONSUMER CLASS ACTIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (AND BEYOND) Brad W. Dixon BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP Introduction British Columbia courts continue to grapple with efforts by plaintiffs

More information

Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board..., 1997 CarswellNWT CarswellNWT 81, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 17

Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board..., 1997 CarswellNWT CarswellNWT 81, [1997] N.W.T.J. No. 17 1997 CarswellNWT 81 Northwest Territories Supreme Court Wilman v. Northwest Territories (Financial Management Board Secretariat) David Wilman, Applicant and The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2010 BCSC 1444 Olivia Pratten Date: 20101015 Docket: S087449 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiff

More information

SUPREME COURT OF YUKON

SUPREME COURT OF YUKON SUPREME COURT OF YUKON Citation: Yukon Human Rights Commission v. Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication, Property Management Agency and Yukon Government, 2009 YKSC 44 Date: 20090501 Docket No.: 08-AP004

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: Yahey v. British Columbia, 2018 BCSC 278 Date: 20180226 Docket: S151727 Registry: Vancouver Marvin Yahey on his own behalf and on behalf of all

More information

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17. v. Royal Bank of Canada

NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17. v. Royal Bank of Canada NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: Baypoint Holdings Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 NSCA 17 Date: 20180221 Docket: CA 460374/464441 Registry: Halifax Between: Baypoint Holdings Limited, and John

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Citation: R v Giesbrecht, 2018 MBCA 40 Date: 20180413 Docket: AR17-30-08912 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B ETWEEN : ) G. G. Brodsky, Q.C. and ) Z. B. Kinahan HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) for the Applicant

More information

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2011 SCC 60 DATE: 20111208 DOCKET: 33511 BETWEEN: Attorney General of Quebec Appellant and

More information

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter

Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter 2012 37 Houlden & Morawetz On-Line Newsletter Date: September 10, 2012 Headlines The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the issue of how to distribute commingled funds to the victims of a fraudulent

More information

Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie*

Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie* Court of Appeal on Smith v. Inco: Rylands v. Fletcher Revisited By Michael S. Hebert and Cheryl Gerhardt McLuckie* In October 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision in

More information

Accountability, Independence and Consultation Director of Military Prosecutions Policy Directive

Accountability, Independence and Consultation Director of Military Prosecutions Policy Directive Accountability, Independence and Consultation Director of Military Prosecutions Policy Directive Directive #: 010/00 Original Date: 15 Mar 00 Subject: Accountability, Independence and Consultation Cross

More information

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 PRELIMINARY RULING ON JURISDICTION

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 PRELIMINARY RULING ON JURISDICTION Claim No. SCCH-449291 IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Custom Clean Atlantic Ltd. v. GSF Canada Inc., 2016 NSSM 17 BETWEEN: CUSTOM CLEAN ATLANTIC LTD. Claimant - and - GSF CANADA INC.

More information

Robin MacKay Mayra Perez-Leclerc. Publication No C7-E 20 July 2016

Robin MacKay Mayra Perez-Leclerc. Publication No C7-E 20 July 2016 Bill C-7: An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures Publication No.

More information

September 1, 2015 Le 1 er septembre 2015 DISCLOSURE

September 1, 2015 Le 1 er septembre 2015 DISCLOSURE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CABINET DU PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OPERATIONAL MANUAL MANUEL DES OPÉRATIONS DE POURSUITES PUBLIQUES TYPE OF DOCUMENT TYPE DE DOCUMENT : Policy Politique CHAPTER

More information

THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY

THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 1999 Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Object of Act 4. Interpretation 5. Non-application of Act 6. Act binds the State Arrangement of Sections PART I PRELIMINARY

More information

Uniform Class Proceedings Act

Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding

More information

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Interim Report in follow-up to the review of Canada s Sixth Report August 2013 Introduction 1. On May 21 and 22,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Ciarniello v. HMTQ, 2006 BCSC 1671 Rickey W. Ciarniello Her Majesty the Queen Date: 20061114 Docket: 23883 Registry: Vancouver Petitioner

More information

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Xela Enterprises Ltd. v. Castillo, 2016 ONCA 437 DATE: 20160603 DOCKET: C60470 Weiler, LaForme and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN In the matter of Xela Enterprises Ltd. and

More information

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LMM(02)6 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION INTRODUCTION 1. Commonwealth Heads of Government at their Durban Meeting in 1999 noted the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Principles, which were endorsed by the Commonwealth

More information

DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST On May 9, 2007, counsel for the OPP sought directions from me on the issue of whether certain documents are an impediment to the Ontario Provincial

More information

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING

PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE CAMERON KING PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: R. v. King 2008 PESCTD 18 Date: 20080325 Docket: S1-GC-572 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN LESLIE

More information

Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold.

Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. Canadian soldiers are entitled to the rights and freedoms they fight to uphold. This report is a critical analysis Bill C-41, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments

More information

Syllabus. Canadian Constitutional Law

Syllabus. Canadian Constitutional Law Syllabus Canadian Constitutional Law (Revised February 2015) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice. Candidates are responsible for obtaining the

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW-

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW- ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN CANADA -AN OVERVIEW- CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN D. RICHARD FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL, CANADA Bangkok November 2007 INTRODUCTION In Canada, administrative tribunals are established by

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2011 BCSC 112 British Columbia (Attorney General) v. British Columbia (Information a... Page 1 of 24 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And British Columbia (Attorney General)

More information

Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code. D. Brian Newton, Q.C.

Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code. D. Brian Newton, Q.C. Third Party Records Disclosure Applications s. 278 Criminal Code D. Brian Newton, Q.C. Preamble Several years ago, I was approached by Victim Services of the Department of Justice in regards to providing

More information

Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation, Respondents. John Terry and Emily Sherkey, for the Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION

Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corporation, Respondents. John Terry and Emily Sherkey, for the Respondents REASONS FOR DECISION CITATION: Attorney General of Canada v. Mobil et al., 2016 ONSC 790 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-11079-00CL DATE: 20160216 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO COMMERCIAL LIST RE: Attorney General of Canada, Applicant

More information

Order F11-23 BRITISH COLUMBIA LOTTERY CORPORATION. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. August 22, 2011

Order F11-23 BRITISH COLUMBIA LOTTERY CORPORATION. Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator. August 22, 2011 Order F11-23 BRITISH COLUMBIA LOTTERY CORPORATION Michael McEvoy, Adjudicator August 22, 2011 Quicklaw Cite: [2011] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 29 CanLII Cite: 2011 BCIPC No. 29 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/2011/orderf11-23.pdf

More information

Provincial Jurisdiction After Delgamuukw

Provincial Jurisdiction After Delgamuukw 2.1 ABORIGINAL TITLE UPDATE Provincial Jurisdiction After Delgamuukw These materials were prepared by Albert C. Peeling of Azevedo & Peeling, Vancouver, B.C. for Continuing Legal Education, March, 1998.

More information

Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé)

Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Caporal A.J.R. Thibault (intimé) (CMAC-577; CMAC-581; 2015 CMAC 2; 2015 CACM 2) Indexed As: R. v. Gagnon

More information