Supreme Court of Canada Hearings

His Majesty the King v. Walker McColman (39826)

The respondent was driving a vehicle, had exited the public highway, and was on private property when the police officer approached him. The officer testified that they did not see any signs of impairment prior to stopping the respondent and there was nothing unusual about his driving. The officer explained that they were exercising their authority to conduct random sobriety checks pursuant to s. 48(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. At the stop, the officer spoke to the respondent, observed obvious signs of impairment, and arrested him. The respondent was convicted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle, and operating a motor vehicle while “over 80”. The respondent’s summary conviction appeal was allowed; the conviction was set aside and an acquittal was entered. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal. Argued Date 2022-11-01 Keywords Criminal law - Arbitrary detention (s. 9) - Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Exclusion of evidence —Was the police stop authorized by s. 48(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 — If there was a breach of s. 9 of the Charter, should the evidence have been excluded under s. 24(2) — ss. 9, 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Notes (Ontario) (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).

Glen Hansman v. Barry Neufeld (39796)

The appellant, Glen Hansman, is a man and teacher, and at the time of the events in question, he was also the President of the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation (“BCTF”). The respondent, Barry Neufeld, is an elected public school board trustee in the Chilliwack School District in B.C.The B.C. Minister of Education, after consultations with stakeholders, published age-appropriate tools and resources for teachers of children from Kindergarten through Grade 12, with the goal of promoting inclusive environments, policies and procedures in schools regarding sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI 123”). Mr. Neufeld posted negative comments and criticisms about the implementation of SOGI 123 materials on his Facebook page. His comments attracted significant criticism and media attention. In his capacity as President of the BCTF, Mr. Hansman was interviewed about Mr. Neufeld’s post. Mr. Neufeld alleged that Mr. Hansman defamed him in that interview and in subsequent statements that were broadcast and published in the press and online. Public debate on SOGI 123 materials continued for over a year.Mr. Neufeld filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Hansman. Mr. Hansman applied to have Mr. Neufeld’s action dismissed under s. 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3 (“PPPA”), commonly known as anti-“SLAAP” legislation which allows for the possibility of early dismissal of “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”.The application judge granted Mr. Hansman’s application for dismissal of Mr. Neufeld’s defamation action, finding that Mr. Hansman had established the necessary grounds for a dismissal under the PPPA and concluding that the public interest in allowing debate over this issue outweighed the public interest in allowing Mr. Neufeld to continue his defamation proceeding against Mr. Hansman. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Mr. Neufeld’s appeal, holding that the application judge made several errors, and allowed Mr. Neufeld’s defamation action against Mr. Hansman to go forward. Argued Date 2022-10-11 Keywords Torts - Libel and slander - Torts — Libel and slander — Anti-SLAPP legislation — Appellant applying to summarily dismiss respondent’s defamation action in relation to appellant’s public statements that were published and broadcast — Did the Court of Appeal err in overturning the chambers judge’s dismissal of the action on the basis of the fair comment defence? — Did the Court of Appeal err in overturning the chambers judge’s conclusion that the public interest in continuing the proceeding did not outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendant’s expression? — Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3, s. 4. Notes (British Columbia) (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).

Corporation of the City of Greater Sudbury v. Ministry of the Attorney General (Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development) (39754)

The City of Greater Sudbury contracted Interpaving Limited to repair utilities and to repave streets affected by the repairs. An employee of Interpaving Limited operating a road grader struck and killed a pedestrian who was attempting to cross a street in the construction zone. Safety measures required by legislation were not in place. The Ministry of Labour charged the City as a “constructor” and an “employer” under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1, and Construction Projects, O. Reg. 213/9. The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted the City on all charges. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an appeal. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in respect of the three charges against the City as an employer and set aside the acquittals on those charges. The Crown conceded that the factual findings to determine guilt on one count had not been made at trial. The Court of Appeal remanded the case to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to hear an appeal raising whether the City had established a defence of due diligence in respect of the other two charges. Argued Date 2022-10-12 Keywords Provincial offences - Provincial offences — Occupational health and safety — Whether the owner of a construction project which had contracted the construction out to a third party to act as the constructor was the employer pursuant to s. 1(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.1, and responsible for workplace safety? Notes (Ontario) (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).

Janick Murray-Hall v. Attorney General of Quebec (39906)

Following the enactment in 2018 of the Cannabis Act, S.C. 2018, c. 5, by the federal government and the Cannabis Regulation Act, CQLR, c. C-5.3, by the province of Quebec, the appellant, Janick Murray-Hall, brought an action in the Quebec Superior Court challenging the constitutional validity of ss. 5 and 10 of the Cannabis Regulation Act, which completely prohibit the possession of cannabis plants and the cultivation of cannabis for personal purposes in Quebec. He sought a declaration that those provisions are ultra vires the provincial legislature or, in the alternative, that they are of no force or effect because of the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy.The Quebec Superior Court allowed the appellant’s application and declared that ss. 5 and 10 of the Cannabis Regulation Act are constitutionally invalid. The Quebec Court of Appeal was of the view that the provisions are constitutionally valid and operative. It unanimously allowed the appeal of the Attorney General of Quebec and set aside the trial judgment. Argued Date 2022-09-15 Keywords Constitutional law - Division of powers - Constitutional law — Division of powers — Double aspect doctrine — Cooperative federalism — Doctrine of federal paramountcy — Constitutionality of Quebec statute prohibiting possession of cannabis plants and personal cultivation of cannabis for personal purposes — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal judges erred in law in finding ss. 5 and 10 of Cannabis Regulation Act, CQLR, c. C-5.3, constitutionally valid — Whether Court of Appeal’s judgment must therefore be reversed — Cannabis Regulation Act, CQLR, c. C-5.3, ss. 5, 10. 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).

His Majesty the King v. Pascal Breault (39680)

The respondent, Mr. Breault, refused a number of times to provide a breath sample to a peace officer who demanded that he do so at a time when an approved screening device was not in the officer’s possession. The Municipal Court found Mr. Breault guilty of failing to comply with a demand made to him by a peace officer, thereby committing the offence provided for in ss. 254(5) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code. In its view, the validity of the demand did not depend on a device being at the scene at the time when the demand was made. The Court of Appeal instead held that, because of the requirement that a breath sample be provided “forthwith”, a delay greater than is necessary to properly operate the device or obtain a reliable test in light of the facts noted by the police officer cannot be justified. The demand was therefore invalid, and the refusal that followed did not constitute a criminal offence. Argued Date 2022-09-14 Keywords Criminal law - Criminal law — Failure or refusal to provide breath sample in approved screening device — Criterion of immediacy under s. 254(2) of Criminal Code — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in interpreting standard of immediacy of s. 254(2)(b) (now 320.27(1)(b)) of Criminal Code as meaning that validity of police officer’s demand depends on possibility of officer having “immediate access” to approved screening device — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, s. 254(2)(b) (now 320.27(1)(b)). Notes (Quebec) (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).

Her Majesty the Queen v. Gerard Comeau (Day 2/2) (37398)

In October 2012, the respondent Mr. Comeau drove from his hometown Tracadie, in New Brunswick, to Pointe-à-la-Croix and the Listuguj First Nation Indian Reserve, in the province of Quebec. He went there to purchase alcoholic beverages. Mr. Comeau was, at the time, under police surveillance as part of an investigation into cross-border liquor transport. His vehicle was intercepted upon his return, in Campbellton, New Brunswick. Mr. Comeau was charged by way of Notice of Prosecution for “hav[ing] or keep[ing] liquor not purchased from the Corporation”, an offence under section 134(b) of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10. The police also seized the alcoholic beverages he had purchased that day, a total of 354 bottles or cans of beer and three bottles of liquor. In his defense, Mr. Comeau claimed that section 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act was an unenforceable provincial law, of no force and effect, as it contravened section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.The trial judge declared s. 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act unconstitutional and of no force and effect. He found that s. 134(b) constitutes a trade barrier which violates section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.The Attorney General of New-Brunswick brought an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New-Brunswick pursuant to s. 116(3) of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c. P-22.1. This provision allows an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal on a ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed (R. v Comeau, 2016 CanLII 73665 (NB CA)). Argued Date 2017-12-07 Keywords Constitutional law - Constitutional law - Interpretation - Conflict of laws - Interprovincial trade - Notice of Prosecution for having brought alcoholic beverages into New Brunswick from Quebec - Whether section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a free trade provision? - Whether s. 121 of the Constitution Act renders unconstitutional s. 134 of the Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, which along with s. 3 of the Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, establishes a federal-provincial regulatory scheme in respect of intoxicating liquor? - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 121 - Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, s. 134 - Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, s. 3. Notes (New Brunswick) (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).

Her Majesty the Queen v. Gerard Comeau (Day 1/2) (37398)

In October 2012, the respondent Mr. Comeau drove from his hometown Tracadie, in New Brunswick, to Pointe-à-la-Croix and the Listuguj First Nation Indian Reserve, in the province of Quebec. He went there to purchase alcoholic beverages. Mr. Comeau was, at the time, under police surveillance as part of an investigation into cross-border liquor transport. His vehicle was intercepted upon his return, in Campbellton, New Brunswick. Mr. Comeau was charged by way of Notice of Prosecution for “hav[ing] or keep[ing] liquor not purchased from the Corporation”, an offence under section 134(b) of the New Brunswick Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10. The police also seized the alcoholic beverages he had purchased that day, a total of 354 bottles or cans of beer and three bottles of liquor. In his defense, Mr. Comeau claimed that section 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act was an unenforceable provincial law, of no force and effect, as it contravened section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.The trial judge declared s. 134(b) of the Liquor Control Act unconstitutional and of no force and effect. He found that s. 134(b) constitutes a trade barrier which violates section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.The Attorney General of New-Brunswick brought an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New-Brunswick pursuant to s. 116(3) of the Provincial Offences Procedure Act, SNB 1987, c. P-22.1. This provision allows an appeal directly to the Court of Appeal on a ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed (R. v Comeau, 2016 CanLII 73665 (NB CA)). Argued Date 2017-12-06 Keywords Constitutional law - Constitutional law - Interpretation - Conflict of laws - Interprovincial trade - Notice of Prosecution for having brought alcoholic beverages into New Brunswick from Quebec - Whether section 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 is a free trade provision? - Whether s. 121 of the Constitution Act renders unconstitutional s. 134 of the Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, which along with s. 3 of the Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, establishes a federal-provincial regulatory scheme in respect of intoxicating liquor? - Constitution Act, 1867, s. 121 - Liquor Control Act, RSNB 1973, c. L-10, s. 134 - Importation of Intoxicating Liquor Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-3, s. 3. Notes (New Brunswick) (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).

Nova Chemicals Corporation v. Dow Chemical Company, et al. (39439)

(SEALING ORDER)In 2014, the Federal Court, in the liability phase of the trial, held that the respondents’ (collectively “Dow”) 705 Patent for fabricated products made from ethylene polymer blends was found to be valid and infringed by a product manufactured by Nova Chemicals Corporation (“Nova”). The 705 Patent issued in 2006 and expired on April 19, 2014. Dow was held to be entitled to damages under the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, and had to elect either an accounting of Nova’s profits or damages sustained by reason of Nova’s infringement under s. 55(1) of the Act. The quantum of that award was to be assessed by reference. Dow elected an accounting of profits. The reference judge was required to determine the manner in which damages payable to Dow pursuant to ss. 55(1) and 55(2) of the Act should be calculated. The principles articulated by the reference judge allowed for the calculation of the accounting of profits to be disgorged by Nova and made payable to Dow. That decision was upheld on appeal. Argued Date 2022-04-20 Keywords Intellectual property - Patents, Medicines, Damages - Intellectual property — Patents — Medicines — Damages — Respondent seeking remedy of accounting of profits following determination applicant had infringed respondent’s patent — What is the proper conceptual approach to determining how to calculate a disgorgement of profits in the patent context? — Are “springboard profits” on products sold after patent expiry available at law?. Notes (Federal Court) (Civil) (By Leave) (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).

Corporal C.R. McGregor v. Her Majesty the Queen (39543)

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)Cpl. McGregor, a Canadian Armed Forces member, was posted to and resided in the United States. The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service suspected he committed the offences of interference and voyeurism by surreptitiously placing audio recording devices in the residence of another Canadian Armed Forces member also posted to the United States. An American police force obtained a search warrant in Virginia permitting entry into and a search of Cpl. McGregor’s residence in Virginia. Virginia law permits searching electronic devices under the authority of a warrant to search a residence. The American police entered Cpl. McGregor’s residence and invited the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service to conduct the search. Officers seized electronic devices and searched some devices during the search of the residence. They discovered evidence of the suspected offences and other offences. Electronic devices were seized, removed to Canada and searched further pursuant to warrants from the Court Martial. The Standing Court Martial dismissed a motion to exclude the evidence for breach of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Cpl. McGregor was convicted for sexual assault, two counts of voyeurism, possession of a device for unlawful interception, and disgraceful conduct. The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed an appeal. Argued Date 2022-05-19 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Extraterritoriality, Search and seizure (s. 8) - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Extraterritoriality — Search and seizure — Canadian Forces National Investigation Service seizing and searching contents of electronic devices during search of residence in United States of America of Canadian Armed Forces Regular Member posted to United States of America — Admissibility of evidence seized during search at Standing Court Martial in Canada — Whether Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to search — If yes, whether search breached right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure — If search breached s. 8 of Charter, whether evidence should be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of Charter — Whether exception of customary or international law necessitates unilateral Canadian authority in context of Canadian Armed Forces member required to be on foreign soil — Whether cooperation between states precludes exception of consent to principle of sovereignty?. Notes (Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada) (Criminal) (By Leave) (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).

F. v. N. (39875)

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)The appellant and her former husband, the respondent, were married in Pakistan in 2012. They have two children under the age of five who are both Canadian citizens, as is the mother. The father is a Pakistani citizen. The parties resided in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) during the entire course of their marriage under a series of temporary residence visas directly linked to the father’s employment there. The mother and children were issued visas as dependents of the father, who had discretion over the renewal process. The mother advised the father shortly after arriving in Canada with the children in June 2020 to visit with her family that she would not be returning to Dubai with the children.The father initiated proceedings for divorce in Dubai, and brought an application under s. 40 of the CLRA for an order requiring the children to be returned to Dubai to have the matters of custody and access decided there, as the children’s habitual residence. The UAE is not a signatory country to the Hague Convention. The father obtained a divorce from the court in Dubai and was also granted custody and guardianship of the children. The mother did not participate in the proceedings in Dubai. The mother asked the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction in this case under ss. 22 or 23 of the CLRA to decide the parenting issues. Argued Date 2022-04-12 Keywords Family law - Custody, Parental authority, Courts, Jurisdiction - Family law — Custody — Parental authority — Courts — Jurisdiction — Mother leaving non Hague Convention country with children without father’s consent and retaining them in Ontario — Did the majority of the Court of Appeal err by affirming the trial judge’s decision to decline jurisdiction pursuant to s. 23 of the CLRA? — What factors and to what extent should the “best interests of the child” principle inform a s. 23 analysis in determining the risk of serious harm? — Did the majority of the Court of Appeal err by affirming the trial judge’s decision to return the children to the UAE pursuant to s. 40 of the CLRA? — How and to what extent should the “best interests of the child” principle inform the exercise of judicial discretion and available remedies under s. 40 of the CLRA? Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) (Publication ban on party) 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).