Supreme Court of Canada Hearings

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).

Transportation Safety Board of Canada v. Kathleen Carroll-Byrne, et al. (39661)

An Air Canada flight from Toronto to Halifax crashed when it landed short of the runway during a snowstorm. Some of the passengers commenced a class action asserting negligence on the part of various defendants, including Air Canada, the pilot and co pilot. The appellant (Board) investigated the crash, taking into consideration the on-board cockpit voice recorder (CVR). The Board’s report on its findings was produced to the parties. The respondent Airbus S.A.S. moved for an Order requiring the Board to produce the audio data from the CVR and any transcripts. Other respondents also sought production. The CVR and transcripts are in possession of the Board, who claims a statutory privilege over the materials under the Act. It intervened to argue that the court should not exercise its discretion to order production in the face of its privilege. A judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia denied a motion by the Board to make further ex parte representations after his in camera review of the CVR and ordered production of the CVR and transcripts, subject to restrictions. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2022-03-17 Keywords Legislation - Interpretation, Courts - Legislation — Interpretation — Courts — Discretion to order production — Open court principle — Important public interest — Privacy — Safety — Does s. 28(6)(b) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, S.C. 1989, c. 3 (the Act), entitle the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to make in camera submissions (not in the presence of other parties) to a court prior to any decision to release an on board recording (in this case, a cockpit voice recorder) — What is the correct test to be applied by a court when deciding whether to order production of the contents of an on board recording (in this case, a cockpit voice recorder) pursuant to s. 28(6)(c) of the Act. Notes (Nova Scotia) (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).

Kerry Alexander Nahanee v. Her Majesty the Queen (39599)

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)The appellant plead guilty to two counts of sexual assault. The appellant and Crown made sentencing submissions, which were not joint submissions. The Crown sought a 4 6 year global sentence. The appellant sought a 3 to 3.5 year global sentence. There was no guilty plea in exchange for joint submissions on sentence. The sentencing judge did not agree with the sentencing submissions, and imposed a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge did not alert counsel that she was intending to exceed the Crown’s proposed sentence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal. Argued Date 2022-03-16 Keywords Criminal law - Sentencing - Criminal law — Sentencing — Guilty plea — Sentencing judge exceeding sentence proposed by Crown and failing to warn parties — Are the considerations set out in Anthony Cook applicable to non joint submissions where the Crown and the accused negotiate sentencing positions that reflect partial agreement or an agreed upon range — Whether the failure of a trial judge to alert counsel that they intend to exceed the sentencing ceiling proposed by Crown an error in principle resulting in fundamental unfairness and warranting appellate intervention. Notes (British Columbia) (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).