Summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book. Every Sunday we present a precis of the latest summaries, a fuller version of which can be found on MLB-Slaw Selected Case Summaries at cases.slaw.ca.
This week’s summaries concern:
Charges to criminal jury / Collective agreement & drug testing / Hearsay rule of evidence / Immigration & grounds for exclusion:
R. v. Stubbs (S.) 2013 ONCA 514
Criminal Law – Procedure – Charge or directions – Jury or judge alone – General
A jury convicted the accused of a number of offences, including attempted murder, for allegedly shooting his ex-girlfriend in the head. He appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his prior discreditable conduct, charged the jury in an unfair and unbalanced way, and answered a jury question improperly. The accused also appealed the sentences, arguing that the sentences imposed were . . .
Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30 2013 SCC 34
Labour Law – Industrial relations – Collective agreement – Interpretation – Work rules – Drug and alcohol policies (incl. testing)
Irving Pulp and Paper Ltd. operated a kraft paper mill in Saint John, New Brunswick. Irving unilaterally adopted a workplace policy which included mandatory and random alcohol and drug testing for employees holding safety sensitive positions. A tested employee filed a grievance in which he challenged Irving’s alcohol testing policy on the basis that “… there was no reasonable grounds to . . .
R. v. Baldree (C.) 2013 SCC 35
Evidence – Hearsay rule – General principles and definitions – What constitutes hearsay
The police arrested the accused on drug charges and seized his cell phone. A police officer answered a call made to the accused’s phone. The caller wanted to buy and have delivered to a local address an ounce of “weed”. Posing as the accused’s successor, the officer agreed to deliver the drugs at the price the accused usually charged, but didn’t make the delivery. At trial, the evidence . . .
Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. 2013 SCC 36
Aliens – Exclusion and expulsion – Immigration – Deportation – Grounds for – Inadmissibility – Exception
Agraira, a citizen of Libya, had resided in Canada since 1997. He was found to be inadmissible on security grounds in 2002 based on his membership in the Libyan National Salvation Front, a terrorist organization according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Agraira applied under s. 34(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) for ministerial relief from the determination of inadmissibility. His application was . . .