Canada Case Law

A.B. and Gracie v. Correctional Service Canada

Court

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

The Tribunal applied Sherman Estate and s.52 CHRA and found that Complainant A demonstrated a real and substantial risk of undue hardship from disclosure, based on her transgender identity, non-public nature of that identity and recent reintegration; that risk outweighed the societal interest in openness for that information, warranting confidentiality orders. For Complainant B and the named/potential Sexual Offender Witnesses the record showed much identifying information already public and media risk was speculative, so s.52(1)(c) and s.52(1)(b) relief was not warranted; less intrusive meas…

Source excerpt

• Confidentiality orders
• Publication ban
• Section 52 chra
• Open court principle
• Indigenous discrimination
• Transgender vulnerability

Read case analysis

R. v. MacKay

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed a request for a fully in camera appeal, but ordered limited in camera hearing for issues under ss. 278.93 and 278.3.

• In camera proceedings
• S.278.93 criminal code (trial judge determination on prior sexual activity)
• S.278.3 criminal code (production of third party records)
• Publication ban under s.486.4(2)
• Soira s.16(4) confidentiality
• In-camera-proceedings

Read case analysis

Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company Limited

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal extended time to post security for costs after unforeseen difficulties, and dismissed a request for a permanent sealing order.

• Security for costs
• Extension of time
• Sealing order
• Publication ban
• Translation/accessibility
• Security-for-costs

Read case analysis

R. v. MacKay

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal granted a consent motion for release of in camera records so a transcript could be prepared for appeal, noting a desk order could be used in uncontested cases.

• Production of records
• S. 683(1)(a) criminal code
• Court of appeal jurisdiction
• In‑camera proceedings
• Desk order
• Publication ban s.486.4(2)

Read case analysis

A.B. v. C.D. and E.F.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that A.B., a 14-year-old transgender boy, could consent to hormone treatment for gender dysphoria. The father's injunction was dismissed.

• Capacity to consent
• Gender dysphoria treatment
• Mature minor doctrine
• Injunctive relief
• Best interests of the child
• Publication ban

Read case analysis

R. v. Aitken

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ruled on the admissibility of intercepted internet searches, admitting some pages as probative and excluding others as overly prejudicial.

• Admissibility of electronic evidence
• Probative versus prejudicial balancing
• Post-offence conduct
• Wiretap authorization
• Admissibility-of-electronic-evidence
• Probative-vs-prejudicial

Read case analysis

Loveridge v. HMTQ

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that a criminal publication ban under s. 486(3) did not extend to related civil proceedings and refused anonymity in the civil action.

• Sexual assault
• Publication ban
• Anonymity
• Criminal code s.486(3)
• Publication-ban
• Criminal-code-s-486-3

Read case analysis

R. v. Armistead

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal set aside a dangerous offender designation, substituted a long-term offender designation, and imposed a determinate sentence with 10 years of supervision.

• Dangerous offender designation
• Long-term offender designation
• Substitution of designation
• Fresh evidence (medical)
• Parole placement and supervision orders
• Curative proviso

Read case analysis

Hingley v. Nova Scotia (Medical Board)

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Stay application dismissed because appellant failed to meet the primary test: he did not establish an arguable case requiring interlocutory intervention in an ongoing administrative hearing and did not demonstrate irreparable harm tied to the evidentiary ruling; exceptional circumstances were not shown; single judge in chambers could not grant the injunctive relief sought and an adequate remedy exists on appeal (including trial de novo).

Source excerpt

• Stay of execution
• Interlocutory injunction
• Judicial intervention in administrative hearings
• Relevance and privilege of medical records
• American cyanamid interlocutory test
• Trial de novo on appeal

Read case analysis