SCC summaries by Andrew Pilliar

Desrochers v. Canada (Industry), 2009 SCC 8
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Constitutional / Charter / Official languages)
D ran a corporation created by the Francophone community to address shortcomings in provision of Industry Canada's programs in the French language in a community.  After filing complaints with the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, D applied to court for a finding that Industry Canada was in breach of the Official Languages Act.  The court found that Industry Canada had been in breach when the application was filed, but was no longer in breach when the court reached its decision.  The court dismissed the application without costs.  The Court of Appeal held that the application should have been granted, but that only costs should be awarded as remedy.  The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, but found that the duties of linguistic equality set out in the Constitution and the Official Languages Act are wider than set out by the Court of Appeal.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

Ravndahl v. Saskatchewan, 2009 SCC 7
Click here to link to the full judgment. 
(Limitation periods / Charter)
R lost her widow's pension benefit when she remarried in 1984.  Legislative amendments ultimately provided for such compensation to continue after remarriage, but these amendments only applied to persons remarried after 1985, the date that s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect.  In 1999, the government provided a lump sum benefit for those not covered by the amendments.  R refused the lump sum, and brought her action asking for her benefits to be reinstated with interest, and for a declaration that the legislative amendments were of no force or effect.  The trial court dismissed her claim as barred by the statute of limitations.  The Supreme Court held that R's personal claims were statute barred, but her claims for declarations of constitutional invalidity were not.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc., 2009 SCC 6
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Contracts / Employment)
S sold his insurance agency to KRG, but remained employed by the agency for another 14 years.  S's employment contracts contained a restrictive covenant in which S agreed to not be employed in the insurance broker business within the "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" for three years after termination.  In 2001, S began working for a different insurance broker in Richmond.  KRG sued.  The trial judge dismissed the case, finding "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" to be ambiguour.  The Court of Appeal set aside the decision, finding that the term could be interpreted to mean various cities in the Vancouver area.  The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal, holding that "Metropolitan City of Vancouver" was ambiguous, and the Court of Appeal had no basis on which to substitute their preferred definition.
Majority/Dissent: 7/0

R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal / Jury charge)
The accused were convicted of first degree murder.  They appealed, arguing that the trial judge had failed to provide a sufficient warning to the jury about using unsavoury witness testimony.  The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a so-called Vetrovec caution must: 1) draw the jury's attention to the evidence requiring special scrutiny; 2) explain why this evidence requires special scrutiny; 3) caution the jury that it is dangerous to convict on unconfirmed evidence of this sort, though the jury may do so if satisfied that the evidence is true; and 4) that in determining whether the evidence is true, the jury should look for evidence from another source which indicates that the unsavoury witness was telling the truth.  The Court also indicated that there is no single formula for a proper caution.
Majority/Concurring: 6/1

R. v. Smith, 2009 SCC 5
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal / Jury charge)
The accused was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.  The Crown's case depended on two alleged accomplices who had been granted immunity and witness protection in exchange for their testimony.  The trial judge warned the jury to be cautious in accepting their testimony and unsafe to rely on that evidence alone, but told the jury it could rely on the testimony if it was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true.  The Court upheld the convictions, holding that a so-called Vetrovec warning must clearly warn the jury of the danger of relying on unsavoury witness testimony without additional evidence.  The warning must also identify what type of additional evidence can be used to support unsavoury witness testimony.
Majority/Concurring: 6/1

R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal / Evidence / Crown's duty to disclose)
The accused was convicted on multiple drug charges.  The arresting officer was the Crown's main witness.  After conviction but before sentencing, the accused learned that the arresting officer had been charged criminally for drug-related offences.  The Court of Appeal ordered police files related to the charges against the arresting officer to be produced.  The arresting officer ultimately pleaded guilty, evidence of that conviction was admitted on the accused's appeal, and the accused's convictions were set aside.  The Supreme Court heard the case despite it being moot.  The Court held that the Crown's obligation to disclose all relevant information extends to police misconduct files that could reasonably impact on the case against the accused.  The Court also noted that relevant information should usually be disclosed by third parties, subject to court restrictions to guard privacy concerns.
Majority/Dissent: 8/0

Lipson v. Canada, 2009 SCC 1
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Tax / Income Tax / GAAR)
L and his wife bought a family residence, then entered a series of transactions involving a mortgage and a loan to buy shares in a family corporation.  Mortgage funds were used to repay the share loan, and L deducted mortgage interest payments and reported share taxable dividends over the following years.  The Minister of National Revenue disallowed the deductions.  The Court held that under the general anti-avoidance rule ("GAAR"), the deductions should be disallowed.
Majority/Dissent/Dissent: 4/2/1

Confédération des syndicats nationaux v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 SCC 68
Click here to link to the full judgment.
(Constitutional law / Division of powers)
In 1996, the federal government restructured Canada's unemployment insurance system.  Under this new system, the government introduced five types of employment benefits, and set premiums at a level that would cover benefit expenditures and allow a surplus to accumulate to ensure long-term stability.  In 2001 and 2005, the government amended the Employment Insurance Act to allow premium levels to be set by the Governor General in Council (i.e. the federal cabinet), rather than Parliament.  CSN applied for a declaration that the premium-setting mechanisms, the accumulation of surpluses and the allocation of those surpluses was unconstitutional.  The Court rejected the argument that the allocation of surpluses was unconstitutional, but accepted that delegating premium-setting to cabinet was unconstitutional and granted a declaration of unconstitutionality.  The declaration was suspended for 12 months.
Majority/dissent: 7/0

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co. of Canada, 2008 SCC 66
Click here to link to the full judgment. 
(Insurance / "All risk" insurance)
An insurance policy for a complex tunnel project covered all risks of direct physical loss or damage, but excluded faulty or improper design.  The project required a tunnel boring machine to be specially designed and built to dig the tunnel.  Despite meticulous preparation, the machine became contaminated, and added significantly to the length and cost of the project.  The insurers denied coverage based on the faulty or improper design exclusion.  The Court found that since the risk described in the insurance was broadly defined, and the engineers addressed that risk with diligence and state-of-the-art expertise, the faulty or improper design exclusion did not apply.  Failure is not the same thing as fault or impropriety.
Majority/Dissent: 4/3