Home » 2016 (Page 4)

R v Villaroman: Wet Roads, Dry Sidewalks, and The Human Intellect

There is something incredibly human about the ability, and our tendency, to infer. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle once waxed and waned that our instinct to draw quick conclusions both defines and hinders the human intellect: “the quick inference, the subtle trap, the clever forecast of coming events, the triumphant vindication of bold theories—are these not […]

Heritage Capital Corp v Equitable Trust: Municipal compensation payments will not run with the Land 

This guest post was contributed by James Steele. James Steele practices insurance, municipal, and commercial litigation with Robertson Stromberg LLP in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.  In Heritage Capital Corp. v. Equitable Trust, 2016 SCC 19 the Supreme Court offered two significant lessons to purchasers of Canadian heritage properties: Absent express statutory language, positive covenants in favour of developers will not run with the […]

R v Lloyd: Opening the Door for Reform and Challenges to Mandatory Minimums

Two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) were the subject of significant media attention this past spring. R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 [Lloyd] and R v Safarzadeh‑Markhali, 2016 SCC 14 [Safarzadeh] involved constitutional challenges to sentencing provisions and have been framed as directly dismantling the previous federal government’s “tough on crime” […]

Musqueam Indian Band v Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review): Supreme Court of Canada Considers First Nations’ Right to Tax Golf Course Based on its Value as Residential Land

"Canada has never come to terms with First Nations people and our special place within the fabric of this country." - Doug Cuthand The recent Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) decision in Musqueam Indian Band v. Musqueam Indian Band (Board of Review) 2016 SCC 36 (“Musqueam Indian Band”) represents a powerful pronouncement on the ability of […]

Daniels v Canada : Out of the Wasteland, Into the Fray

For centuries, the Métis and non-status Indian populations of Canada have been lost in a “jurisdictional wasteland.” Both the federal and provincial governments swayed between legislating over the two groups at certain times and denying all constitutional responsibility at others. Not only did this seesaw deprive Métis and non-status Indian people of essential programs and […]

KRJ: A New Way to Understand “Punishment” and the Crown’s Justificatory Burden

The Court’s decision in KRJ this summer provides a new test for “punishment” under s 11(i) of the Charter. While the Supreme Court of Canada’s new test better reflects the goals of the guarantee, overall the case may have a problematic impact because of its treatment of s 1, which rests on an unclear standard […]

Ledcor Construction: The First and Large Exception to Sattva

Canadians routinely open bank accounts, take out loans, sign insurance, and wireless agreements. To facilitate these daily processes, companies often use standard form contracts. You do not need legal training to realize that such contracts are “take it or leave it” prepositions. However, for a business such as a construction company signing an insurance policy, […]

R v Vassell: Reasonableness and Systemic Flaws in the Legal System

In R v Vassell, 2016 SCC 26, the accused, Mr. Vassell, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. However, Mr. Vassell’s trial was delayed by over three years, and because of this, he applied for a stay of proceedings and claimed that the delay violated his s. 11(b) Charter right. Under […]

Wilson v Atomic Energy: a Case Study for Judicial Decision-Making in Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada recently handed down its much-anticipated decision in Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd, 2016 SCC 29 [Wilson], confirming that federally regulated employees cannot be terminated without cause under the Canada Labour Code, RSC 1985, c L-2 [Code]. The implications of this decision for administrative and employment law were previously discussed by TheCourt.ca in […]

Lapointe v Cassels Brock: SCC clarifies the fourth Van Breda presumptive connecting factor

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 [Van Breda] brought greater judicial guidance to the question of when a Canadian court may assume jurisdiction over a claim. The SCC articulated four non-exhaustive presumptive connecting factors (PCFs) that a party may rely on to establish a […]