Category: Supreme Court of Canada Page 7 of 23

By: Alice Woolley

PDF Version: The Unfortunate Incident of the TWU Intervention Decisions

Cases Commented On: Trinity Western University, et al. v Law Society of Upper Canada, SCC file no 37209; Law Society of British Columbia v Trinity Western University, et al, SCC file no 37318

On July 27, 2017 Justice Wagner denied intervenor status to 17 of 26 applicants in the Trinity Western University cases before the Supreme Court, including the applications of all LGBTQ+ identifying groups. Following an immediate and negative public reaction, particularly on social media, Chief Justice McLachlin used her scheduling power to add a second day to the TWU hearings, and then extended intervention status to the 17 applicants whom Justice Wagner originally rejected (Both orders can be found here). Two days later, Justice Wagner gave an interview to the Globe and Mail explaining that he had “no intention to exclude” members of the LGBTQ+ community, and that he and the Chief Justice had decided together how best to proceed after “he was made aware of concerns on social media”. The Supreme Court also issued a News Release explaining what had occurred.

R v Cody: The Supreme Court Stands Their Ground on Unreasonable Delay

By Drew Yewchuk

On June 29, 2017

In Constitutional, Criminal, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: R v Cody: The Supreme Court Stands Their Ground on Unreasonable Delay

Case Commented On: R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31 (CanLII)

Just a little under a year after the Supreme Court released R v Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 (CanLII) and established a new framework for the Charter section 11(b) right to a criminal trial within a reasonable time, the Court has released a new decision on the issue. (For my earlier post on Jordan, see here, and for a post discussing interpretation of Jordan by some Alberta courts see here.) R v Cody, 2017 SCC 31 (CanLII) clarifies the Jordan framework, but more importantly it affirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to ending the “culture of complacency towards delay in the criminal justice system” (at para 1) despite the pressure Jordan has placed on Crown prosecutors.

“Majoritarian Blind Spot”? Drug Dependence and the Protection Against Employment Discrimination

By Jennifer Koshan

On June 20, 2017

In Human Rights, Labour/Employment, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: “Majoritarian Blind Spot”? Drug Dependence and the Protection Against Employment Discrimination

Case Commented On: Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII)

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corp., 2017 SCC 30 (CanLII) on June 15, 2017. As noted in earlier ABlawg posts on the case (see here and here), the case involves a long-term employee whose job was terminated when, after a minor workplace accident, he tested positive for cocaine and admitted to having consumed the drug while off work a couple of days prior. Elk Valley Coal, the employer, had a policy providing some lenience for employees who disclosed drug or alcohol addictions and sought treatment, failing which its practice was to automatically terminate employment where an employee tested positive for drugs or alcohol following a workplace accident. Stewart did not avail himself of this policy because he did not realize he had an addiction until after the accident. He alleged that his termination amounted to discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to section 7 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5, and that he had not been reasonably accommodated by Elk Valley. Stewart’s claim was dismissed by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, a decision upheld by the Court of Queen’s Bench and a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (per Chief Justice McLachlin) upheld as reasonable the Tribunal decision that there was no discrimination. Justices Moldaver and Wagner disagreed with this conclusion but concurred in the result, finding that the Tribunal was reasonable in concluding that Elk Valley had fulfilled its duty to accommodate. Justice Gascon dissented, characterizing the Tribunal’s decisions on both discrimination and the duty to accommodate as unreasonable.

I find Justice Gascon’s decision most persuasive and most in keeping with a broad, generous approach to interpreting human rights legislation. His remark (at para 59) that drug-dependent persons can “easily be caught in a majoritarian blind spot in the discrimination discourse” was evident in the decisions of the Tribunal and courts below, and in the reasons of the majority of the Supreme Court, as I will elaborate on in this post.

Supreme Court of Canada Protects Freedom of Expression of Individuals During Election Campaigns

By Linda McKay-Panos

On March 1, 2017

In Constitutional, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Linda McKay-Panos

PDF Version: Supreme Court of Canada Protects Freedom of Expression of Individuals During Election Campaigns

Case Commented On: BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association v British Columbia (Attorney General) 2017 SCC 6 (CanLII)

In this case, which involves political speech that is at the very core of protected expression in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) ruling doesn’t turn on lofty values as much as it relies on statutory interpretation. It also provides some interesting discussion on the amount of evidence the government must provide in order to defend a violation of Charter section 2(b) under Charter section 1 in the election context.

The British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (Association) challenged British Columbia’s Election Act, RSBC 1996, c 106, section 239, which requires registration with the Chief Electoral Officer by individuals or organizations who wish to “sponsor election advertising.” The SCC had previously upheld similar election registration legislation applying to third parties who spent at least $500 on election advertising (see, for example Harper v Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 SCR 827 (CanLII)(Harper)).

Mennillo v Intramodal inc.: The Supreme Court of Canada Revisits the Oppression Remedy

By Jassmine Girgis

On February 17, 2017

In Corporate / Commercial, Supreme Court of Canada

By: Jassmine Girgis

PDF Version: Mennillo v Intramodal inc.: The Supreme Court of Canada Revisits the Oppression Remedy

Case Commented On: Mennillo v Intramodal inc., 2016 SCC 51 (CanLII)

Mennillo v Intramodal inc. is the first oppression remedy case since BCE Inc. v 1976 Debentureholders 2008 SCC 69 (CanLII) (BCE) to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. The SCC had to determine whether the failure of a company to observe formalities required under the Canada Business Corporations Act, RSC 1985, c C-44 (CBCA) constituted oppression as against a former shareholder. The appeal of the former shareholder was dismissed on a finding that neither “sloppy paperwork on its own” nor “the corporation and its controlling shareholder treating [the former shareholder] exactly as he wanted to be treated” (at para 5) constituted oppression. There was a majority opinion (written by Cromwell J), a concurring opinion (McLachlin CJ and Moldaver J), and a strong dissent by Justice Côté.

This post deals with the comments made by the Court, including the dissent, on the oppression remedy. The oppression remedy is available when the court is satisfied that the corporation or its directors acted in a way that is oppressive or unfairly prejudicial to, or that unfairly disregards the interests of, any security holder, creditor, director, or officer (CBCA, s 241(2)).