Canada Case Law

R. v. Mayor

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge erred as a matter of law by treating the statutory authority to arrest under s.217(2) HTA as dispositive without determining whether the officers subjectively formed a road safety purpose or used the HTA as a ruse to further a drug investigation; the judge failed to make necessary factual findings about officers' purpose and surrounding circumstances, requiring quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

Source excerpt

• Vehicle stop
• Pretextual stop
• Highway traffic act s.216(1) and s.217(2)
• Charter s.8 and s.9
• Subjective police purpose
• Onus of proof

Read case analysis

Beasse v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed a summary-trial motion over the second sinking of the Elf, finding the CCG acted reasonably under statutory pollution-response powers.

• Seaworthiness
• Bailment
• Pollution response
• Statutory authority (canada shipping act s180)
• Liability for pollution (marine liability act s77)
• Summary trial procedure

Read case analysis

Chieftain Metals Inc. v. Tulsequah Wilderness Adventures Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed Chieftain’s claim, found TWA had not abandoned the camp assets, and awarded TWA $200,000 for Chieftain’s conversion of the equipment.

• Conversion
• Trespass
• Abandonment
• Injunction
• Mineral tenure rights
• Mine permit and control of access

Read case analysis

Gautam v. Canada Line Rapid Transit Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Certification granted in a Cambie Village class action alleging nuisance from Canada Line cut-and-cover construction, with issues framed around statutory authority, waiver of tort, and injurious affection.

• Nuisance
• Waiver of tort
• Injurious affection
• Statutory authority defence
• Certification criteria
• Preferable procedure

Read case analysis

R. v. Hy & Zel's Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The 1993 Act does not infringe s.2(a) because its purpose remains secular (providing common pause days) and any burdens on religious practice are not significant; it does not infringe s.15 because differential treatment is based on occupational sector rather than an enumerated or analogous ground, so no discrimination is established; therefore no Charter breach is found and the statutory prohibitions are constitutionally valid.

Source excerpt

• Charter s.2(a) freedom of religion
• Charter s.15 equality rights
• Charter s.1 justification
• Retail regulation
• Sabbatarian exemption

Read case analysis

Lombard Canada Ltd. v. Hamel Construction Inc.

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Chambers judge: in determining duty to defend the court is confined to the plaintiff’s statement of claim and extrinsic material explicitly referred to therein; on a reasonable reading of Waterworks’ statement of claim and the contract terms incorporated therein, and having regard to statutory and common-law obligations governing navigable waters, it was a realistic possibility that the sunken caisson caused physical damage to the waterway for which Waterworks was obliged to remedy, thus potentially falling within the policy’s property damage cove…

Source excerpt

• Duty to defend
• Policy exclusions
• Property damage vs. economic loss
• Navigable waters obligations
• Interpretation of pleadings

Read case analysis

D.G. (E.) v. Hammer

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal split on whether a school board owed a non-delegable duty after a janitor sexually assaulted a pupil. Majority dismissed the appeal; the cross-appeal was dismissed.

• Non-delegable duty
• Fiduciary duty
• Vicarious liability
• Sexual assault
• Damages
• Statutory interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. Grenkow

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Warrantless entry was lawful and reasonable in the exigent circumstances under municipal and provincial fire statutes and did not breach s.8; evidence observed and seized (including typewritten notes linked to the appellant's typewriter) was admissible and not excluded under s.24(2); circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict for arson, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Arson
• Warrantless entry
• Search and seizure
• Charter s.8
• Exclusion of evidence s.24(2)
• Circumstantial evidence

Read case analysis

Harper v. Harper

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

Appeal about division of a matrimonial home, admission of fresh evidence, and candour to the court. The Supreme Court awarded the wife a one-third interest.

• Matrimonial home
• Discretionary relief under s.8 family relations act
• Admission of fresh evidence on appeal
• Misleading pleadings and candour of counsel
• Title issues under veterans' land act
• Matrimonial-home

Read case analysis

Wardle v. Manitoba Farm Loan Association

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court held that Manitoba Farm Loans lands revested by statute were not subject to Crown Lands Act mineral reservations, and the registrar’s notation was a nullity.

• Mines and minerals
• Crown reservations
• Statutory revesting
• Torrens system endorsements
• Agency/ownership of public corporations
• Mines-and-minerals

Read case analysis