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:
Judicial reasons / Discovery of settlement documents / Expropriation & interest / drug-sniffing dogs:
R. v. Vuradin (F.) 2013 SCC 38
Courts - Judges – Duties – Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes)
The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawful touching of a person under 16 for a sexual purpose (counts 1 to 5). There were three child complainants and one adult complainant.
The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench convicted the accused on all five charges. The conviction on count 2 was stayed according to the Kienapple principle. The accused appealed. . . .
Sable Offshore Energy Inc. et al. v. Ameron International Corp. et al. 2013 SCC 37
Practice - Discovery – What documents must be produced – Settlement documents and other agreements
The plaintiffs’ oil rig was painted using paint manufactured by the Ameron defendants. The paint failed, leading to corrosion of the steel the paint was intended to protect. As there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the Ameron defendants, the plaintiffs’ claim against the Ameron defendants was based in negligence, alleging, inter alia, that the paint was unsuitable for the project. The plaintiffs . . .
Gimbel et al. v. Alberta (Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services) 2013 ABCA 290
Expropriation - Measure of compensation – Elements of compensation – Interest
After lengthy expropriation proceedings, the Land Compensation Board awarded interest at an investor’s rate of a 90 day T-bill. The owners of the expropriated land appealed.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (2008), 437 A.R. 175; 433 W.A.C. 175, allowed the appeal and referred the question of interest to the board. The board issued a second decision dealing with interest. The owners appealed again.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, . . .
R. v. Chehil (M.S.) 2013 SCC 49
Civil Rights - Property – Search and seizure – Drug-sniffing dogs
Members of the RCMP’s Criminal Interdiction Team analyzed the passenger manifest for an overnight Vancouver to Halifax flight. They observed that the accused was one of the last passengers to purchase a ticket, he paid for his one-way ticket in cash, and he checked one bag, which they testified were indicators of illegal drug trafficking. They decided to verify the accused’s checked bag for the presence of drugs using a . . .