APRIL 18 – JUNE 19, 2012.
Here’s a super-tight summary of all appeals and all leaves to appeal. For leaves I’ve specifically added in both the date the SCC granted leave and the date of the CA judgment.
If you’d like previous reports so you’re right-up-to-date, or if you’d like an electronic copy (so you can click n’ go) email me: emeehan@supremeadvocacy.ca
APPEALS
Tessier Ltée v. Quebec (Que. CA, Sept. 13, 2010) (33935) May 17, 2012
Employees not forming a discrete unit and fully integrated into a related operation will not render federal an operation that is otherwise local.
R. v. R.P. (Que. CA, Dec. 3, 2010) (34038) May 11, 2012
Courts of Appeal cannot substitute their own credibility assessment re ‘unreasonable’ verdicts.
R. v. Roy (BCCA, March 16, 2010) (33699) June 1, 2012
A single and momentary error is not enough for dangerous driving.
R. v. Gibbons (Ont. CA, Jan. 29, 2010) (33813) June 8, 2012
Civil Procedure Rules re contempt does not preclude using Criminal Code s. 127.
R. v. Maybin (BCCA, Nov. 25, 2010) (34011) May 18, 2012
Both the “reasonable foreseeability” and “intentional, independent act” approach are useful in assessing causation, though neither determinative.
R. v. Jesse (BCCA, March 9, 2010) (33694) April 27, 2012
Similar fact evidence is presumptively inadmissible. Trial judges must be satisfied that, overall, its probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect.
Halifax v. Canada (Fed. CA July 21, 2010) (33876) June 15, 2012
Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act does not permit the feds to adopt a method of valuation resulting in nominal payment.
Calgary v. Canada (Fed. CA, May 21, 2010) (33804) April 26, 2012
Calgary can get rebates of a portion of GST for municipal transit, but cannot claim input tax credits.
Annapolis v. Marshall (NS CA, Feb. 4, 2011) (34189) June 7, 2012
Statutory right-of-way provisions serve a dual function: were pedestrians contributorily negligent by failing to yield; can drivers reasonably proceed assuming others will follow the rules and yield.
LEAVES TO APPEAL GRANTED
Can a (Canadian) inmate in a U.S. prison use the Charter to come back to Canada.
Divito v. Canada (Fed. CA, February 3, 2011) (34128) May 24, 2012
Is there a conflict when a firm acts against a current client on unrelated matters.
CNR v. McKercher LLP (Sask. CA, Sept. 28, 2011) (34545) May 24, 2012
Can a class action be brought against companies manufacturing electronic components, after they pleaded guilty in the U.S. to related charges.
Samsung, et al v. Option Consommateurs, et al (Que. CA, Nov.16, 2011) (34617) May 17, 2012
Who has jurisdiction where the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, HQ’d in Nova Scotia, terminates an employee.
Amaratunga v. NAFO (NS CA, Aug. 23, 2011) (34501) April 26, 2012
Publication ban, in context of extent to which sincere religious beliefs can be used by accuseds.
DJW v. R. (B.C.C.A., Dec. 22, 2011) (34623) April 26, 2012
When should the modified objective test for mens rea be applied.
R. v. Bélanger (Que. CA, Sept. 9, 2011) (34512) April 26, 2012
When can police, stopping a motorist for speeding, use a sniffer dog.
MacKenzie v. R. (Sask. CA, May 25, 2011) (34397) May 10, 2012
Publication ban, where C.A. overturned jury’s guilty verdict and entered an acquittal.
R. v. WH (NL CA, Sept. 14, 2011) (34522) May 24, 2012
Was dismissal wrongful, and was the non-competition clause too broad.
Payette, et al v. Guay inc. (Que. CA, Dec. 12, 2011) (34662) May 17, 2012
Relevancy of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed abroad re refugee status.
Ezokola v. Canada (Fed. CA, July 15, 2011) (34470) April 26, 2012
Is there copyright infringement by ‘Robinson Sucroe’ against ‘Robinson Curiosity’.
Cinar Corporation v. Robinson, et al (Que. CA, July 20, 2011) (34466) May 24, 2012
Similar summary as above.
Weinberg, et al v. Les Productions Nilem Inc. et al (Que. CA, July 20, 2011) (34467) May 24, 2012
Similar summary as above.
Izard, et al v. Robinson, et al (Que. CA, July 20, 2011) (34468) May 24, 2012
Similar summary as above.
Robinson, et al v. France Animation S.A., et al (Que. CA, July 20, 2011) (34469) May 24, 2012
What are the relative ownership interests in a business where the owner of a trucking company and a realtor contributed to same.
Nishi v. Rascal Trucking (BCCA, Aug. 17, 2011) (34510) April 26, 2012
About the Author
Eugen Meehan, Q.C., is a litigation partner at Supreme Advocacy LLP, Ottawa. emeehan@supremeadvocacy.ca