Today

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, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. It’s a summary of all appeals and leaves to appeal granted, so you know what the S.C.C. will soon be dealing with (Mar. 17, 2017 to April 20, 2017 inclusive).

Appeals

Professions: Costs Against Lawyers Personally

Québec (Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v. Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26 (36539)

The courts’ power to award costs against a lawyer personally is not limited to civil proceedings, but criminal also, and can sometimes be exercised against defence lawyers, though rare. The power to control abuse of process and the judicial process by awarding costs personally applies in tandem with: courts’ jurisdiction re contempt of court & law societies re sanction unethical conduct. Costs against a lawyer personally is justified only on an exceptional basis where the lawyer’s acts have seriously undermined the authority of the courts or seriously interfered with the administration of justice.

Oral Judgments

Civil Procedure: Civil Contempt; Self-Reps

Pintea v. Johns, 2016 ABCA 99; 2017 SCC 23 (37109)

Justice Karakatsanis: “The common law of civil contempt requires that the respondents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of the Orders for the case management meetings he failed to attend. The case management judge failed to consider whether Mr. Pintea had actual knowledge of two of the three Orders upon which she based her decision. The respondents concede that the requirements of Rule 10.52(3)(a)(iii) of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta. Reg. 124/2010, were not met with respect to these two Orders. As a result, the finding of contempt cannot stand. We would add that we endorse the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons (2006) established by the Canadian Judicial Council. The appeal is allowed, the action is restored and the costs award vacated.”

Criminal Law: Pre-Charge Delay

R. v. Hunt, 2016 NCLA 61; 2017 SCC 25 (37314)

Justice Abella: “A majority of this Court is of the view that the appeal should be allowed substantially for the reasons of Hoegg J.A. Justice Côté would dismiss the appeal substantially for the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal.”

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault

R. v. George, 2016 SKCA 155; 2017 CanLII 24267 (37372)

Justice Abella: “We are all of the view that the appeal should be allowed and the acquittals restored. Reasons to follow.”

Labour Law in Québec: Mootness

Lajeunesse (Re), 2017 SCC 24 (37320)

Justice Gascon: “We all agree that the question before us is moot, as the strike of LANEQ (Les avocats et notaires de l’État québécois) is over. The appeal is therefore dismissed without costs. In doing so, we endorse neither the process followed nor the validity of the considerations identified by the Court of Appeal in its decision.”

Leaves to Appeal Granted

Aboriginal Law: Duty to Consult

Canada (Governor General in Council) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2016 FCA 311 (37441)

Is there a duty to consult as part of the legislative process.

Constitutional Law: Interprovincial Trade

R. v. Comeau, 2016 CanLII 73665 (37398)

How does interprovincial trade work in Canada.

Criminal Law: DUI; Disclosure

R. v. Gubbins, 2016 ABCA 358 (37395)

What has to be disclosed on an “over 80” charge.

Criminal Law: DUI; Disclosure

R. v. Vallentgoed, 2016 ABCA 358 (37403)

What has to be disclosed on an “over 80” charge.

Criminal Law: Perjury

R. v. Millington, 2016 BCCA 293 (37235) May 18

Was perjury committed herein.

Criminal Law: Perjury

R. v. Robinson, 2017 BCCA 6 (37411)

Was perjury committed herein.

Family Law: Hague Convention

Balev v. Baggott, 2016 ONSC 55 (37250)

In the context of a Hague Convention matter, should the children reside in Canada or Germany.

Insurance in Québec: “Care, Custody & Control” Exclusions

Compagnie canadienne d’assurances générales Lombard v. Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, société mutuelle d’assurances générales, 2016 QCCA 1903 (37421)

Does the “care, custody & control” exclusion apply here.

Insurance in Québec: “Care, Custody & Control” Exclusions

Compagnie canadienne d’assurances générales Lombard v. Promutuel Portneuf-Champlain, société mutuelle d’assurances générales, 2016 QCCA 1903 (37422)

Does the “care, custody & control” exclusion apply here.

Labour Law: Pay Equity

Québec (Attorney General) v. Alliance du personnel professionnel et technique de la santé et des services sociaux, 2016 QCCA 1659 (37347)

Are key provisions of Québec’s Pay Equity Act constitutional.

Workers Comp: Administrative Penalties

West Fraser Mills Ltd. v. B.C. (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), 2016 BCCA 473 (37423)

When are workers comp administrative penalties applicable.

Comments are closed.