Supreme Court of Canada Hearings

Earl Mason, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (39855)

Section 34(1)(e) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”) provides that permanent residents or foreign nationals are “inadmissible on security grounds” for “engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada”. The Minister alleged that both appellants were foreign nationals who were inadmissible under s. 34(1)(e) of the IRPA.The issue before the Immigration Board and the Immigration Appeal Division was whether s. 34(1)(e) applied only where there is a connection to national security. Both agreed with the Minister that it did not. In their view, s. 34(1)(e) operates whether or not there is a connection to national security.On judicial review, the Federal Court quashed the decisions in the two cases.Both cases were heard together at the Federal Court of Appeal. It allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Federal Court and dismissed the applications for judicial review. It found the administrative interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) was reasonable and answered the following certified question:Q.: Is it reasonable to interpret para. 34(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in a manner that does not require proof of conduct that has a nexus with “national security” or the “security of Canada”?A. Yes. Argued Date 2022-11-29 Keywords Immigration - Judicial review - Immigration — Inadmissibility on security grounds for “engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada” — Judicial review — Interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) — Whether reasonable interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) of IRPA requires national security nexus — Whether s. 34(1)(e) of IRPA can apply to conduct that does not require a nexus to “national security” or “security of Canada” — How should reviewing courts determine whether a legislative provision can bear only one reasonable interpretation and what constraints will bear on this assessment — Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in overturning Federal Court’s findings that tribunal decisions were unreasonable. Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

D.R. v. His Majesty the King (40039)

(PUBLICATION BAN)At trial, the appellant was acquitted of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault respecting the complainant, a person under the age of 16 years. A majority of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial. It held that the trial judge engaged in impermissible stereotypical reasoning when assessing the complainant’s credibility by relying on the stereotypes that a victim could not be happy to see her abuser regardless of her age and circumstances, and that a victim will exhibit avoidant behaviour around her abuser if she were truly being abused. In dissent, White J.A. would have dismissed the appeal. In his view, the trial judge did not rely on any myth or stereotype about sexual assault when assessing the complainant’s credibility. Argued Date 2022-12-01 Keywords Criminal law - Evidence - Criminal law — Evidence — Credibility — Stereotypical reasoning — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law in ruling that the trial judge relied upon impermissible stereotypes of victims of sexual abuse when he assessed the complainant’s credibility. Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Ryan David Clark v. His Majesty the King (40090)

Before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, the appellant, Ryan David Clark, was convicted by a jury of second degree murder. The main issue at trial was the identity of the person who had beaten the deceased to death.On appeal, Mr. Clark argued that the trial judge erred by failing to address the frailties of eyewitness evidence in his instructions to the jury, particularly with regard to in-court identification by two witnesses. He also argued that the trial judge erred by allowing other witnesses to provide bad character and post-offence conduct evidence and by failing to adequately caution the jury in relation to that testimony and that the verdict was unreasonable. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The jury instructions properly equipped the jury to understand its task in evaluating all of the eyewitness identification evidence, including the in-court identification. It was adequately prepared to examine the frailties of the evidence of the two particular witnesses and to determine if it would accept their testimony as credible and reliable in accordance with the law. The trial judge also did not err in regard to post-offence conduct and bad character evidence and the verdict was not unreasonable.In dissent, Leurer J.A. would have allowed Mr. Clark’s appeal and ordered a new trial. In his view, the jury charge did not adequately equip the jurors to deal with the frailties of the in-court eyewitness identification evidence in this case. Argued Date 2022-11-30 Keywords Criminal law - Charge to jury - Criminal law — Charge to jury — Eyewitness evidence — Identification — In-court identification — Caution — Whether the trial judge erred in not providing an adequate jury instruction or caution alerting jurors that a witness’s testimony had limited value for the purposes of identifying the assailant who killed the victim, and that this witness’s in court identification of the appellant had no evidentiary value — Whether the trial judge erred in not providing an adequate jury instruction or caution on the problematic nature of another witness’s in-court identification of the appellant, and that it would be dangerous to attribute to this identification any degree of certainty greater than what she had communicated to police prior — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law by concluding the instructions on eyewitness identification evidence did not give rise to reversible legal error. Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Earl Mason, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (39855)

Section 34(1)(e) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”) provides that permanent residents or foreign nationals are “inadmissible on security grounds” for “engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada”. The Minister alleged that both appellants were foreign nationals who were inadmissible under s. 34(1)(e) of the IRPA.The issue before the Immigration Board and the Immigration Appeal Division was whether s. 34(1)(e) applied only where there is a connection to national security. Both agreed with the Minister that it did not. In their view, s. 34(1)(e) operates whether or not there is a connection to national security.On judicial review, the Federal Court quashed the decisions in the two cases.Both cases were heard together at the Federal Court of Appeal. It allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Federal Court and dismissed the applications for judicial review. It found the administrative interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) was reasonable and answered the following certified question:Q.: Is it reasonable to interpret para. 34(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in a manner that does not require proof of conduct that has a nexus with “national security” or the “security of Canada”?A. Yes. Argued Date 2022-11-29 Keywords Immigration - Judicial review - Immigration — Inadmissibility on security grounds for “engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada” — Judicial review — Interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) — Whether reasonable interpretation of s. 34(1)(e) of IRPA requires national security nexus — Whether s. 34(1)(e) of IRPA can apply to conduct that does not require a nexus to “national security” or “security of Canada” — How should reviewing courts determine whether a legislative provision can bear only one reasonable interpretation and what constraints will bear on this assessment — Whether Federal Court of Appeal erred in overturning Federal Court’s findings that tribunal decisions were unreasonable. Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Canadian Council for Refugees, et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, et al. (39749)

(Publication in case)(Sealing order)Since the 2004 agreement between Canada and the United States known as the Safe Third Country Agreement, the U.S. has been designated a safe country pursuant to s. 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002 227. As a result, claimants arriving at a land port of entry to Canada from the U.S. are deemed to be ineligible for refugee protection in Canada pursuant to s. 101(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. The individual applicants are among those claimants who were deemed ineligible. The applicants ABC and her children are from El Salvador, claiming refugee status based on gang violence and gender-based persecution. The Homsi/Al Nahass applicants are a Muslim family from Syria who left the U.S. following the issuance of the first travel ban by the U.S. government. The applicant Ms. Mustefa is a Muslim woman from Ethiopia who was detained after her attempt to enter Canada from the U.S. The applicant organizations were granted the right to participate as public interest parties. The collective applicants challenged the Canadian government’s failure to review the ongoing designation of the U.S. under s. 159.3 of the Regulations as rendering that provision ultra vires and not in conformity with s. 101(1)(a), 102(2) ad 102(3) of the Act. They also claimed that the designation and their ineligibility to claim refugee status infringed their rights guaranteed under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were not justified under s. 1.The Federal Court rejected the ultra vires argument but held that s. 159.3 of the Regulations and s. 101(1)(e) of the Act infringed s. 7 of the Charter and were not justified under s. 1. The court found it unnecessary to consider whether the provisions also infringed s. 15. The appellate court allowed the appeal, dismissed a cross-appeal on the ultra vires and s. 15 issues, set aside the Federal Court decisions, and dismissed the applications for judicial review. Argued Date 2022-10-06 Keywords Constitutional law - Canadian charter (Non-criminal), Right to security of person (s. 7), Fundamental justice (s. 7), Right to equality (s. 15), Reasonable limits (s. 1), Immigration, Inadmissibility and removal, Judicial review - Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to security of the person — Fundamental Justice — Right to equality — Reasonable limits — Immigration — Inadmissibility and removal — Judicial review — Appellants seeking judicial review of decisions regarding their ineligibility to claim refugee protections in Canada after arriving at a land port of entry from the United States — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in refusing to determine the constitutionality of the operative provisions — Whether the gender equality claim under s. 15 of the Charter must be adjudicated — Whether s. 159.3 of the Regulations is ultra vires — Whether the combined effect of s. 159.3 of the Regulations and s. 101(1)(e) of the Act infringe s. 7 of the Charter and violate the s. 7 rights of refugee claimants — If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter — Whether the combined effect of s. 159.3 of the Regulations and s. 101(1)(e) of the Act infringe s. 15 of the Charter — If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7 and 15 — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 101(1)(e), 102(2) and 102(3) — Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227, s. 159.3. Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to th

His Majesty the King v. Randy William Downes (40045)

(PUBLICATION BAN)At trial, the respondent, Randy William Downes, was convicted of two counts of voyeurism contrary to s. 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. He was found to have surreptitiously taken photographs of adolescent male hockey players in stages of undress in a dressing room while he was coaching.A majority of the Court of Appeal (per Willcock J.A. with Grauer J.A. concurring), allowed Mr. Downes’ appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. The majority explained that, while it was open to the trial judge to find nudity was expected in the dressing room in which the offences were found to have occurred, the conflicts in evidence regarding whether nudity was expected at the time the photos were taken were not addressed. In dissent, Dickson J.A. would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that the characterization of “a place” under s. 162(1) does not include a temporal use component. In her view, the relevant inquiry was whether the place in which the impugned conduct occurred is a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, regardless of the expected use of that place specifically when the conduct occurred. Argued Date 2022-10-13 Keywords Criminal law - Elements of offence, Evidence - Criminal law — Voyeurism — Elements of the offence — Whether the trial judge erred by failing to consider whether nudity was reasonably expected at the place and at the time where the offence was alleged to have occurred — Whether s. 162(1)(a) of the Criminal Code infringes s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? — If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Charter? — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 162(1)(a). Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

His Majesty the King v. Matthew James Johnston, et al. (39635)

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC)The respondents were found guilty of six counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. The respondents filed applications for stays of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging abuses of process due to police misconduct during the investigation, and also because of their conditions while in pre-trial custody. The Crown applied for summary dismissal of the applications. Finding that the serious nature of the offences committed by the respondents could not justify a stay of proceedings, the trial judge allowed the Crown’s applications for summary dismissal, dismissed the respondents’ applications for stays of proceedings, and entered convictions. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the respondents’ ground of appeal relating to non-disclosure of evidence, but allowed the respondents’ appeal in part, quashed the convictions but affirmed the verdicts of guilt, and ordered that the matter be remitted to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the respondents’ applications for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process. Argued Date 2022-10-04 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law, Abuse of process - Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Stay of proceedings — Abuse of process — Summary dismissal of applications — Whether, and to what extent, a judge is permitted to assess or weigh an applicant’s proposed evidence when determining whether to permit a full evidentiary hearing on an application for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process — Whether the Court of Appeal applied too low a threshold for determining whether a full evidentiary hearing is required on an application for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process. Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Jennifer Basque v. His Majesty the King (39997)

The appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration that exceeded eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred milliliters of blood. The appellant was released from custody on an undertaking, a condition of which was that she would not operate a motor vehicle. The appellant spent the 21 months that elapsed between her initial appearance and sentencing under a driving prohibition as a condition of her release. The Provincial Court sentencing judge imposed a $1,000 fine and decided a fit punishment in the circumstances was the one-year minimum driving prohibition. He then addressed whether he could take into account her 21-month presentence driving prohibition. Deciding he could, the appellant was not subjected to any further driving prohibition. The Crown’s appeal of that decision was dismissed by the summary conviction appeal judge. A majority of the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, varied the Provincial Court decision to include a one-year driving prohibition, and stayed the execution of prohibition order. The dissenting justice would have dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2022-11-08 Keywords Criminal law - Sentencing - Criminal law – Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentences – Did the sentencing judge commit an error of law by granting time served on a mandatory driving prohibition order – Is time served on a driving prohibition pursuant to an accused’s interim release deductible from a mandatory minimum driving prohibition on sentence that would leave the remaining time to be served on sentence below the mandatory minimum – Does this Court’s direction on the issue in Lacasse that dealt with a discretionary order on sentence which said pre-trial driving suspension must be deducted from the time on sentence apply to mandatory minimum prohibition orders? Notes (New Brunswick) (Criminal) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Jennifer Basque v. His Majesty The King (39997)

The appellant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration that exceeded eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred milliliters of blood. The appellant was released from custody on an undertaking, a condition of which was that she would not operate a motor vehicle. The appellant spent the 21 months that elapsed between her initial appearance and sentencing under a driving prohibition as a condition of her release. The Provincial Court sentencing judge imposed a $1,000 fine and decided a fit punishment in the circumstances was the one-year minimum driving prohibition. He then addressed whether he could take into account her 21-month presentence driving prohibition. Deciding he could, the appellant was not subjected to any further driving prohibition. The Crown’s appeal of that decision was dismissed by the summary conviction appeal judge. A majority of the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, varied the Provincial Court decision to include a one-year driving prohibition, and stayed the execution of prohibition order. The dissenting justice would have dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2022-11-08 Keywords Criminal law - Sentencing - Criminal law – Sentencing – Mandatory minimum sentences – Did the sentencing judge commit an error of law by granting time served on a mandatory driving prohibition order – Is time served on a driving prohibition pursuant to an accused’s interim release deductible from a mandatory minimum driving prohibition on sentence that would leave the remaining time to be served on sentence below the mandatory minimum – Does this Court’s direction on the issue in Lacasse that dealt with a discretionary order on sentence which said pre-trial driving suspension must be deducted from the time on sentence apply to mandatory minimum prohibition orders? Notes (New Brunswick) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language Floor Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Yves Des Groseillers, et al. v. Agence du revenu du Québec (39879)

The appellants, Yves Des Groseillers and BMTC Group Inc., appealed assessments made by the respondent, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”). In the course of tax audits, the ARQ added amounts to Mr. Des Groseillers’s taxable income as additional employment income. Those amounts represented the total value of the stock options donated by Mr. Des Groseillers to registered charities, for which he had claimed tax credits. The ARQ therefore added the amounts to BMTC’s payroll as well.The Court of Québec allowed Mr. Des Groseillers’s application and vacated the notices of assessment. It allowed BMTC’s application in part and referred the notices of assessment to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment. In the court’s view, although the transactions were subject to the special rules on the issuance of securities to employees, it would find that Mr. Des Groseillers had not received any benefit, because the evidence showed that he had not received any consideration for the donation and that he had not paid anything to acquire the options. The ARQ could not rely on the presumption set out in another division of the statute to the effect that the disposition of property is deemed to be made at its fair market value, because the special rules form a complete code. The Court of Appeal allowed the ARQ’s appeal, set aside the Court of Québec’s judgment and rendered the decision that ought to have been rendered, that is, it dismissed the appeals brought by Mr. Des Groseillers and BMTC from the notices of assessment. It held that the special rules do not exclude the application of the presumption. Argued Date 2022-11-03 Keywords Taxation - Income tax, Assessment - Taxation — Income tax — Assessment — Stock options — Charitable donation — Whether donation of stock options by individual to registered charity gives rise to taxable employment benefit where donor receives no actual consideration — Taxation Act, CQLR, c. I-3, ss. 48, 50, 54, 422. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).