The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in finding that the Drug Interchangeability and Dispensing Fee Act Regulations, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 93, s. 9 and Ontario Drug Benefit Act Regulation, O. Reg. 201/96, s. 12.0. were not ultra vires. The regulations in question had the effect of banning private label pharmaceuticals in Ontario.

The facts were set out by Justice Abella as follows:

[3] The sale and pricing of generic drugs is provincially regulated. In Ontario, two complementary and intersecting statutes were introduced

. . . [more]

On November 27, 2013, Quebec’s National Employment Insurance Review Commission released its report regarding the impact of the federal government's 2012 changes to the Employment Insurance (EI) program. The report makes 30 recommendations, with three key recommendations calling for the provincial and federal governments to negotiate an agreement giving Quebec the power to manage its own EI system to meet the needs of the province’s labour market. . . . [more]

Lawyers who practice family law in Winnipeg are familiar with the Tuesday morning motions court, known as the “zoo” for reasons that will soon be obvious. For those unfamiliar with this docket court, the recent decision of Associate Chief Justice Rivoalen in Skinner v. Skinner is instructive:

[10] There is a lot going on as the Family Motions Coordinator, parties and their lawyers navigate their way through the typical Family Uncontested Motions melée, and not only because there are so many matters on the List. Moreover, the Court's registry staff, clerks, sheriffs, stand-by master and judges are fully engaged….

[11]

. . . [more]

Administrative tribunals, in making decisions, are sometimes required by legislation to provide reasons for their decisions. Even where there is no legislative requirement to give reasons, principles of procedural fairness may require that a written explanation be provided for the decision reached (see Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC).)

While one might presume the question of when reasons are required would have been well-settled since addressed by the Supreme Court in Baker, Manitoba's Court of Appeal has twice this year addressed that question, in both cases, in appeals from decisions of The . . . [more]

For those of you who have colleagues who do any estate or trust litigation in Toronto, the estate court has essentially been merged with the commercial list effective November 18. Unfortunately, no formal communication about this has been made and it does not appear that any such communication will be forthcoming.

The court must assume that everyone who should know, will know.

There are different forms, procedures and timelines to follow now. Also, all estate matters will now be heard at 330 University (and not 393 University). Adjust your schedules.

The executive committee of the OBA’s Trusts and Estates . . . [more]

The release of five class action decisions penned by Ontario Superior Court Justice Belobaba earlier this month has garnered significant attention in the press and in the profession, and has reignited a debate about cost shifting in class actions. In virtually identical language in Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), Sankar v. Bell Mobility, Crisante v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Dugal v. Manulife and Rosen v. BMO Nesbitt Burns, Justice Belobaba excoriated class action lawyers for over-lawyering certification motions, unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings and generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and disbursements. The result, he bemoans, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada has just held that the collective right to freedom of expression in a lawful strike situation trumps an individual's right to control their information in a public setting, striking down the Alberta Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA).

In its decision, Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62, the Supreme Court weighed the collective rights of a union's freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against the rights of individuals whose personal information was collected, used and disclosed without consent by the . . . [more]

Preserving one’s reputation is a fine value – and one that the law of libel strives to protect. But it’s not absolute, and the law recognizes that some communications are so important that they must trump reputation. That’s why communications that enjoy privilege are defensible in defamation cases.
So is there a qualified privilege when reporting relevant information to the police in good faith, protecting the individual reporting the information from a libel suit. The answer is Yes. . . . [more]

Ontario’s Court of Appeal yesterday issued decisions in 6 cases arising out of challenges to the mandatory minimum sentences imposed with respect to various firearms-related offences. In two of those decisions, R. v. Smickle and R. v. Nur, the Court found that the mandatory minimum sentence provisions of s. 95 of the Criminal Code breached s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but did not breach s. 7 of the Charter.

Two recent decisions from the Court of Queen’s Bench in Manitoba have similarly challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Code’s mandatory minimum sentencing provisions in relation . . . [more]

We know that today marks the start of the Senate reform reference at the Supreme Court of Canada. I am certain that many of us wish we had three days to devote to viewing the webcasts of this event. If you cannot make the time for full attention to the webcast, Eugene Meehan kindly tweeted some of the grab and go information sources.

Tweet by tweet coverage is being handled by:

• @cmathen
• @alisoncrawford5
• @pauldayesq
• @TondaMacC
• @journo_dale
• @fionahmcfarlane

There are some hashtags that are currently in use including #SenCa #SCC and #cdnpoli

If you are planning to watch an SCC Webcast, . . . [more]

On the day that the Supreme Court begins to hear argument in the federal government's reference concerning reform of the Senate (In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning reform of the Senate, as set out in Order P.C. 2013-70, dated February 1, 2013), it is appropriate, perhaps, to point out that the judgment by Québec's Court of Appeal in a reference begun by the provincial government is in fact available in English.

Projet de loi fédéral relatif au sénat (Re) 2013 QCCA 1807 was summarized by SOQUIJ for Slaw last Sunday, and, . . . [more]

The Supreme Court of Canada released its unanimous decision in R. v. Vu this week, dealing with s. 8 of the Charter and the search and seizure of electronic devices such as computers and cellphones.

The police were interested in the potential theft of electricity for a specific home and obtained a search warrant. The warrant in this case did not specify the search of the accused's computer in their Information to Obtain a Search Warrant (“ITO”), although it did indicate “computer generated notes.” The search revealed marijuana plants, and the charges included production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for . . . [more]