Supreme Court of Canada Hearings

The respondent, a private company, was issued a statement of offence under the Quebec Building Act for carrying out certain construction work as a contractor without holding a current licence for that purpose. Under s. 197.1 of the Act, the penalty for such an offence is a mandatory fine for a minimum amount that varies depending on who the offender is, that is, whether the offender is a natural person or a legal person. The respondent filed a notice of intention to question the constitutionality of the fine provided for in s. 197.1, arguing that the fine violated its right to be protected against “any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment” under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.At trial, the Court of Québec held that it was not necessary to rule on the issue of the application of s. 12 of the Charter to legal persons, because the minimum fine at issue was at any rate not cruel and unusual. The respondent was found guilty, and a fine of $30,843 was imposed. On appeal, the Quebec Superior Court affirmed that decision and added that legal persons such as the respondent could not benefit from the protection of s. 12 of the Charter. A majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal set aside the decisions of the lower courts and held that s. 12 of the Charter can in fact apply to legal persons. The matter was returned to the trial court to rule on the specific issue of the fine provided for in s. 197.1 of the Act. Argued Date 2020-01-22 Keywords Canadian charter (Non-criminal) - Constitutional law, Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment (s. 12) - Charter of Rights - Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - Application of Charter rights to legal persons - Statement of offence issued against business corporation for carrying out construction work as contractor without holding current licence - Provincial building legislation providing for mandatory minimum fine of $30,843 - Whether legal person can benefit from protection of section 12 of Charter - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 12 - Building Act, CQLR, c. B 1.1, ss. 46, 197.1. 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).

(PUBLICATION BAN)The appellant was charged in August 2013 with a number of sexual offences. In November 2017, he sought a stay of proceedings due to a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable delay. The trial judge found that the total expected delay for the proceedings would be 57 months, and he subtracted a period of 25 months which he attributed to two discrete exceptional events: a re-election by the accused, and an underestimate of the time required for the trial. The remaining delay of 32 months was still above the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631, but the trial judge concluded that the additional delay was justified under the transitional exceptional circumstance, and dismissed the application. The appellant was found guilty at the conclusion of his trial.The appellant appealed his convictions on the basis that the trial judge erred in dismissing his stay application. A majority of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. It held that the trial judge had erred in excluding the period attributable to the appellant’s re-election from the overall delay, and found the net delay to be 43 months. The majority held that the 43-month delay was nevertheless justified by the transitional exceptional circumstance. In dissent, Butler J.A. found that the transitional exceptional circumstance did not apply, and would have allowed the appeal and entered a stay of proceedings. Argued Date 2021-12-08 Keywords Criminal law - Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law - Charter of Rights - Right to trial within a reasonable delay - Discrete exceptional events - Transitional exceptional circumstance - Whether the delay of 43 months is justified as a transitional exceptional circumstance under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 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).

(PUBLICATION BAN)The respondent, Mr. Goforth, and his wife were jointly charged with the second-degree murder of a four-year-old child they had been fostering (“older child”), and with unlawfully causing bodily harm to a second two-year-old foster child (“younger child”). The predicate offence underlying both charges was failing to provide the necessaries of life, contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code. A jury convicted both accused of unlawfully causing bodily harm to the younger child, and found Ms. Goforth guilty of the second-degree murder of the older child. The jury found Mr. Goforth guilty of the lesser and included offence of manslaughter in relation to the death of the older child. Mr. Goforth appealed his convictions.A majority of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan allowed the appeal, set aside Mr. Goforth’s convictions, and ordered a new trial. The majority did not find error in the trial judge’s charge to the jury in relation to the actus reus of the offence of failing to provide the necessaries of life, but concluded that the trial judge’s explanation of mens rea contained material legal error and that the charge failed to adequately relate the evidence to the mens rea requirements of s. 215. In dissent, Caldwell J.A. would have dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. Argued Date 2021-12-07 Keywords Criminal law - Appeals, Charge to jury, Offences - Criminal law - Appeals - Charge to jury - Offences - Failure to provide necessaries of life - Elements of mens rea - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding the trial judge failed to provide adequate directions to the jury when relating the evidence to the mens rea of the predicate offence of failing to provide the necessaries of life - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding tthe respondent’s personal characteristics were relevant factors in the objective mens rea analysis - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding the trial judge’s mens rea instructions may have confused the jury - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by applying an incorrect standard to its review of the jury instructions - Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 215. Notes (Saskatchewan) (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).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)In February 2011, the respondent, J.F., was charged with several offences involving sexual acts committed between 1986 and 2001. While judgment was reserved, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 631. Following the first trial, J.F. was acquitted in February 2017. The total delay between the charges and the verdict was 72 months and 2 days. In June 2018, the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because of errors of law in the trial judgment. The delay between that order and the anticipated end of the new trial was 10 months and 5 days. J.F. filed a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter in December 2018. The trial judge found that the delay for the first trial was unreasonable and that J.F. had never waived his right to be tried within a reasonable time. She granted the motion and ordered a stay of proceedings in February 2019. In a unanimous judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s order, but for reasons that differed from those of the trial judge. Argued Date 2021-11-30 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law - Charter of Rights - Criminal law - Tried within reasonable time - Trial delay - Ceilings - Whether failure to raise, at first trial or on appeal, possible infringement of right to be tried within reasonable time amounts to waiver of right to raise it during subsequent trial - Whether Jordan framework should be used to consider trial delay for previous trial, delay that is completely over and can no longer be remedied - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b). Notes (Quebec) (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).

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities and two plaintiffs commenced an action claiming that provisions of mental health legislation in British Columbia infringe s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and ss. 1, 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The two individual plaintiffs discontinued their claims and withdrew from the litigation. The Council of Canadians with Disabilities filed an amended statement of claim removing the particulars pleaded by the individual plaintiffs and setting out generalized allegations of constitutional infringements. The Attorney General of British Columbia applied for summary judgment dismissing the action. The application judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the action on the basis that the Council of Canadians with Disabilities lacks public interest standing to pursue the claim on its own. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and remitted the matter of public interest standing for reconsideration. Argued Date 2022-01-12 Keywords Civil procedure - Parties, Standing - Civil procedure - Parties - Standing - Public interest standing - Public interest group and individual plaintiffs commence action claiming mental health legislation infringes Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Individual plaintiffs discontinue their claims - Public interest group seeks standing to continue without co-plaintiffs - Whether legality and access to justice components of the test for public interest standing are key components that must be accorded particular weight - Whether factual context is sufficient to grant public interest standing. 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).

Two corporations implemented a plan devised by a tax professional to protect corporate assets from future creditors. The plans were intended not to incur income tax liability. In part, the plans involved each corporation issuing dividends to a newly-created family trust. The effectiveness of the plan depended on a widely-accepted interpretation of s. 75(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). At the time the plans were implemented, the interpretation was shared by Canada Revenue Agency. Sommerer v. Canada, 2011 TCC 21, affirmed 2012 FCA 207, subsequently adopted a narrower interpretation of s. 75(2). Canada Revenue Agency issued notices of reassessment to each family trust for the taxation years in which dividends were paid. Objections to the reassessments were unsuccessful. The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted equitable recission of the payments of dividends. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal. Argued Date 2022-01-11 Keywords Taxation - Equity, Remedy (s. 24), Remedies - Taxation - Equity - Remedies - Equitable rescission - Tax professionals devise plans to shelter corporations’ assets from potential future creditors - Corporations implement plan and each in part issues dividends to family trusts - Plans consistent with Canada Revenue Agency’s interpretation of s. 75(2) of Income Tax Act -Tax Court of Canada adopts narrower interpretation of s. 75(2) - Dividends to family trusts trigger unanticipated income tax liabilities - Whether equitable remedy of rescission available to unwind transactions - What is the test for equitable recission - Whether equitable relief should be granted when alternative remedies are available?. 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).

Mr. Chhina was placed in immigration detention pending deportation from Canada. The Immigration and Review Board held 12 reviews of his detention and each time ordered continued detention. After 10 months, Mr. Chhina applied to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his detention was lengthy and indeterminate, therefore illegal. He invoked his right under s. 10(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have the validity of his detention determined and to be released if the detention was not lawful, under s. 7 of the Charter to life, liberty and security of the person and not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and under s. 9 of the Charter not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta declined to exercise jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus application. The Court of Appeal Appeal allowed an appeal and remitted the applicaiton to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a rehearing on its merits. Argued Date 2018-11-14 Keywords Courts - Jurisdiction, Habeas corpus, Immigration, Procedure - Courts - Jurisdiction - Habeas corpus - Immigration - Immigration and Refugee Board reviews respondent’s immigration detention and orders continued detention - Respondent applies to Court of Queen’s Bench for writ of habeas corpus - Whether courts should decline habeas corpus jurisdiction in immigration matters - Whether reviews of immigration detention decisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, are more limited and less favourable than reviews by way of habeas corpus - Whether reviews of immigration detention decisions for Charter compliance can only occur on habeas corpus applications - Whether reviews of immigration detention decisions do not require expertise in immigration matters?. Notes (Alberta) (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).

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Right to be tried within a reasonable time – How is the issue of institutional delay to be weighed in a s. 11(b) application? – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b).Between March and December 2008, the applicant was the subject of a police investigation into a dial-a-dope operation selling cocaine and heroin. The police executed a search warrant at the applicant’s residence which yielded 42.3 grams of heroin, 1463.5 grams of cocaine and crack cocaine, $6640 in cash and an employee “shift calendar” for the dial-a-dope line. The applicant was charged with several drug trafficking related offences in 2008. In September 2012 the applicant brought an application for judicial stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging his rights under s. 11(b) had been infringed due to an unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial. The trial judge found that 32.5 months of delay in this case was due to institutional delay. Argued Date 2015-10-07 Keywords Canadian charter (Criminal) - Right to be tried within a reasonable time (s. 11(b)). Notes (British Columbia) (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).

Legislation - Interpretation - Constitutional law - Supreme Court of Canada - Appointment of judges - ReferenceThe Honourable Justice Marc Nadon was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada on October 3, 2013, to fulfill the requirements of s. 6 of the Supreme Court Act which requires that three of the judges of this Court be drawn from the province of Quebec. He was sworn in on October 7, 2013. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Justice Nadon was a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal.Third parties brought an application for judicial review in Federal Court challenging (i) Justice Nadon’s appointment on the basis that sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act do not permit the appointment of Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal Judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, and (ii) Parliament’s ability to legislate with respect to the criteria set out at sections 5 and 6 of the Act. Pending the resolution of this challenge to his appointment, Justice Nadon announced that he would not to participate in matters before the Supreme Court of Canada.On October 22, 2013, a bill was introduced in the House of Commons proposing to add two declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act so as to expressly permit the appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada of a person who currently is, or was at any time, a member of a provincial bar with at least 10 years standing. That same day, the Governor in Council referred two questions to the Court by way of Order in Council P.C. 2013-1105:1. Can a person who was, at any time, an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Barreau du Québec be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada as a member of the Supreme Court from Quebec pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Act?2. Can Parliament enact legislation that requires that a person be or has previously been a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or enact the annexed declaratory provisions as set out in clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill entitled Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No.2?The proceedings before the Federal Court were stayed pending the determination of the questions submitted to this Court. Argued Date 2014-01-15 Keywords Courts - Interpretation, Constitutional law. Notes (Canada) (Civil) (Reference) 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).

Constitutional law - Charter of Rights - Right to life, liberty and security of person - Fundamental justice - Remedy - Crown prerogative in matters of foreign relations - Interviews conducted in Guantanamo Bay by Canadian officials who knew that Canadian child had been subjected to sleep deprivation techniques - Refusal of the Canadian Government to repatriate its national - Whether the courts below erred in finding that the Respondent’s rights under s. 7 of the Charter were breached - If such a breach occurred, whether the remedy was appropriate and just in the circumstances.Mr. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was taken prisoner in Afghanistan when he was 15 years old and has been detained by U.S. Forces since 2002 at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he is currently facing murder and other terrorism-related charges. During his detention, Mr. Khadr was given no special status as a minor. He was not allowed to communicate with anyone outside Guantanamo Bay until November 2004, when he met with legal counsel for the first time. The Canadian Government has asked, through diplomatic channels, for consular access and other assurances, but it is its policy not to request his repatriation until the conclusion of the prosecution. In 2003, Canadian officials questioned Mr. Khadr, still a minor, at Guantanamo Bay, with respect to matters connected to the charges he is now facing, and shared the product of these interviews with U.S. authorities. In 2006, after formal charges were laid against him, Mr. Khadr sought disclosure in Canada of, notably, the records of the interviews conducted at Guantanamo Bay. The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the disclosure (“Khadr 2008”). After the information was disclosed, it became clear that when the officials interviewed Mr. Khadr, they were aware that he had been subjected to a form of sleep deprivation, known as the “frequent flyer program”, to make him more amenable and willing to talk. Mr. Khadr asked the Canadian Government to repatriate him, but to no avail. He sought judicial review of the policy and decision of the Canadian Government not to seek his repatriation. The Federal Court granted his application and ordered the Government to seek his repatriation from the U.S. as soon as practicable. In a majority decision, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Government’s appeal. Argued Date 2009-11-13 Keywords Canadian charter - civil. Notes (Federal Court) (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).