Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

On one Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, SupremeAdvocacyLett@r, to which you may subscribe.

Summary of all appeals and leaves to appeal granted (so you know what the S.C.C. will soon be dealing with)(Oct. 8 – Nov. 12, 2014 inclusive).


Criminal Law: Robbery
R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61(35364)
A threat of robbery is enough for the offence of robbery.

Public International Law: State Immunity
Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 2014 SCC 62 (35034)
The current state of Canadian law does not allow a foreign state to be sued for damages in Canada.

Civil Procedure, Competition, Class Actions, Criminal: Disclosure
Imperial Oil v. Jacques, 2014 SCC 66 (35226, 35231)
There was no factual or legal impediment to disclosure of the documents requested by the respondents under art. 402 C.C.P. The courts have always had a right to oversee and control the evidentiary process, and therefore have all the powers necessary for the exercise of such control, including power to control the process of disclosing evidence and set conditions for and limits on disclosure.

Immigration: Refugees
Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68 (35215)
“Serious criminality” is a ban to refugee protection because of crimes committed in the past.

Languages: Airlines
Thibodeau v. Air Canada, 2014 SCC 67 (35100)
When properly interpreted, there is no conflict between the general remedial powers under the Official Languages Act and exclusion of damages under the Montreal Convention and no need to consider which would prevail if there were; and Federal Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the structural order as it was impermissibly vague and unclear.

Oral Hearings

Criminal Law: Provocation
R. v. Bouchard, 2013 ONCA 791 (35690) Judgment rendered Oct. 16, 2014
Cromwell J.— “We agree with [the] majority of [the C.A.], that the trial judge’s instructions may well have led the jury to understand that the deceased’s allegedly provocative acts and the respondent’s reaction to them had relevance to the mens rea issue only if they met the narrow legal definition of provocation in s. 232 of the Criminal Code  and that this constituted misdirection”.

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
R. v. L., 2013 NWTCA 08 (35665) Judgment rendered Oct. 16, 2014 (Publication Ban)
Cromwell J. ― “Unlike the majority of the Court of Appeal we see no reason to be in any way critical of the conduct of defence counsel at trial. However, we are not persuaded that the trial judge’s handling of the jury’s question, either in the timing or content of her response, constituted legal error or gave rise to a miscarriage of justice”.

Leave to Appeals Granted

Immigration & Refugees: ‘Human Smuggling’
R. v. A.,2014 BCCA 163(35958)
Was the captain and crew guilty of ‘human smuggling’ here.

Pharmaceuticals: Delayed Market Entry
Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis, 2014 FCA 68 (35886)
Publication ban, in the context of generic delayed market entry issues.

M.M. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) (U.S.A.)2014 QCCA 681 (35838)
Publication ban, in the context of missing children.

Comments are closed.