Key Cases
- Home
- Key Cases
Contact Me
(250) 686-1194
Table of Contents
Welcome to this curated shortlist of pivotal Canadian legal cases, designed to serve as a starting point for law students and legal enthusiasts. These summaries aim to provide a quick snapshot of landmark decisions across various areas of law, from Constitutional Law to Indigenous Law. This quick reference quide can be your starting point for essential Canadian case law.
Disclaimer
1. Not legal advice:
the information provided here is not legal advice. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. Seek professional advice for your specific legal needs.
2. Not comprehensive:
these summaries are not exhaustive and only capture the main points of each case, in my opinion. They are meant to offer a brief overview and should not replace a thorough reading and understanding of the full case. If you’re looking for guidance on how to brief a case effectively, refer to my concise guide on this topic, also available on this website.
3. Updates and changes:
laws change, and case law evolves. I cannot guarantee that this list will be updated to reflect new developments or overturned decisions. Conduct your own research and keep your case notes updated.
Constitutional Law
- Facts: David Oakes was charged with drug trafficking and possession. The Crown failed to prove the purpose of trafficking, but Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act presumed guilt unless the accused could prove otherwise.
- Issue: Is Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act inconsistent with the Charter’s Section 11(d) presumption of innocence?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Oakes Test for Section 1 justification under the Charter.
- Rationale: The law was not a reasonable limit on Charter rights.
- Ford v Quebec (1988)
- Facts: Quebec passed a law making French the only language for outdoor signs.
- Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law:Laws that restrict freedom of expression must be justified.
- Rationale:The law was not justified under Section 1 of the Charter.
- Dissent/Concurrence: None
- Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia (1989)
- Facts: Andrews, a non-citizen, was denied the ability to practice law in British Columbia.
- Issue: Does the law discriminate based on nationality?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Discrimination based on nationality is not allowed unless justifiable.
- Rationale: The law was not justified under Section 1 of the Charter.
- R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985)
- Facts: Big M Drug Mart was charged for opening on Sundays, violating the Lord’s Day Act.
- Issue: Does the Lord’s Day Act violate freedom of religion?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Laws must not infringe upon freedom of religion.
- Rationale: The Act imposed Christian observances, violating the Charter.
- Dissent/Concurrence:
- Facts: The Supreme Court was asked to advise on the legality of Quebec’s unilateral secession.
- Issue: Can Quebec secede from Canada unilaterally?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Unilateral secession is not legal under the Constitution.
- Rationale: Secession would require a constitutional amendment approved by the federal government and other provinces.
Criminal Law
- R v Morgentaler (1988)
- Facts: Doctors were charged for performing abortions outside of hospitals, contrary to the Criminal Code.
- Issue: Does the Criminal Code’s abortion provision violate a woman’s right to security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Security of the person includes control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference.
- Rationale: The provision created risks to women’s health and thus violated their right to security of the person.
- Dissent/Concurrence: Several, including one that argued the law should be struck down for different reasons.
- R v Keegstra (1990)
- Facts: Keegstra, a teacher, was charged for promoting hate speech.
- Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Limitations on freedom of expression can be justified.
- Rationale: The law aims to prevent harm to targeted groups.
- R v Sharpe (2001)
- Facts: Sharpe was charged with possession of child pornography.
- Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Limitations on freedom of expression can be justified.
- Rationale: Protecting children from exploitation is a valid reason.
- R v Grant (2009)
- Facts: Grant was stopped by police and found to be carrying a firearm.
- Issue: Was the evidence admissible despite being obtained through detention?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Evidence may be admissible if it doesn’t bring the justice system into disrepute.
- Rationale: The evidence was reliable and the violation was not egregious.
- R v Stinchcombe (1991)
- Facts: Stinchcombe was charged with criminal breach of trust and theft. The Crown withheld evidence from the defense.
- Issue: Is the Crown obligated to disclose all evidence to the defense?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Full disclosure by the Crown is necessary for a fair trial.
- Rationale: The right to make full answer and defense is one of the pillars of criminal justice.
- R v Jordan (2016)
- Facts: Jordan was charged with drug offenses, but his trial was delayed.
- Issue: Does an unreasonable delay in bringing a case to trial violate the accused’s rights?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Unreasonable delay violates the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
- Rationale: The delay was beyond the acceptable limit, infringing on the accused’s Charter rights.
Contract
- Hadley v Baxendale (1854)
- Facts: Hadley’s mill was inoperable due to a broken crankshaft. Baxendale delayed the delivery, causing further loss.
- Issue: s Baxendale liable for the loss caused by the delay?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Damages must be foreseeable at the time of contract formation.
- Rationale: Baxendale was not aware that a delay would result in such a specific loss.
- Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
- Facts: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co promised £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using their product. Carlill did and claimed the reward.
- Issue: Is the company’s promise enforceable?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Unilateral contracts can be binding if there is an intention to create legal relations.
- Rationale: The company made a clear promise with the intent to be legally bound.
- Bank of America Canada v Mutual Trust Co (2002)
- Facts: Bank of America and Mutual Trust had a dispute over priority in a bankruptcy case.
- Issue: Which bank has priority in the distribution of assets?
- Holding: Bank of America.
- Rule of Law: Priority is determined by the timing of the security interest.
- Rationale: Bank of America registered its interest first.
- Tercon Contractors Ltd. v British Columbia (2010)
- Facts: Tercon Contractors sued for breach of a bidding contract.
- Issue: Is the exclusion clause in the contract valid?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Exclusion clauses can be invalid if unconscionable.
- Rationale: The clause was unfair and against public policy.
- Bhasin v Hrynew (2014)
- Facts: Bhasin’s contract was not renewed, causing financial loss.
- Issue: Is there a duty of good faith in contract renewals?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Duty of good faith in contractual performance.
- Rationale: Promotes fairness and predictability in contracts.
- Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp (2014)
- Facts: Sattva Capital claimed a finder’s fee based on a contract with Creston Moly.
- Issue: Is Sattva entitled to the finder’s fee?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Contracts should be interpreted based on the parties’ intentions.
- Rationale: The contract’s language and context supported Sattva’s claim.
Tort Law
- Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (1928)
- Facts: Palsgraf was injured due to the actions of a railroad guard helping a passenger.
- Issue: Is the railroad liable for injuries to Palsgraf?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Liability in negligence requires foreseeability of harm.
- Rationale: The railroad could not have foreseen harm to Palsgraf from the guard’s actions.
- Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) (This is a UK case but foundational in Canadian tort law)
- Facts: Mrs. Donoghue fell ill after drinking a ginger beer that had a decomposed snail in it.
- Issue: Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of a product?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.
- Rationale: There was a foreseeable risk of harm.
- Childs v Desormeaux (2006)
- Facts: Childs was injured by Desormeaux, who was driving drunk after leaving a party.
- Issue: Are social hosts liable for the actions of their intoxicated guests?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Social hosts do not owe a duty of care to third parties injured by their intoxicated guests.
- Rationale: The hosts did not create a risk; they merely failed to act to reduce the risk created by Desormeaux.
- Childs v Desormeaux (2006)
- Facts: Childs was injured by Desormeaux, who was driving drunk after leaving a party.
- Issue: Are social hosts liable for the actions of their intoxicated guests?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Social hosts do not owe a duty of care to third parties injured by their intoxicated guests.
- Rationale: The hosts did not create a risk; they merely failed to act to reduce the risk created by Desormeaux.
- Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007)
- Facts: Hill was wrongfully convicted due to police negligence in investigation.
- Issue: Can police be held liable for negligence in criminal investigations?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law:Police can be held liable for negligence if it leads to a wrongful conviction.
- Rationale: The police owed a duty of care to Hill, and their negligence led to his wrongful conviction.
- Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007)
- Facts: Hill was wrongfully convicted due to police negligence in investigation.
- Issue: Can police be held liable for negligence in criminal investigations?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law:Police can be held liable for negligence if it leads to a wrongful conviction.
- Rationale: The police owed a duty of care to Hill, and their negligence led to his wrongful conviction.
Property
- Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999)
- Facts: Baker, an immigrant, was ordered deported without a fair hearing.
- Issue: Is procedural fairness required in immigration decisions?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Procedural fairness is required in administrative decisions affecting individual rights.
- Rationale: The lack of a fair hearing violated principles of administrative law.
- Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997)
- Facts: The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed ownership of land in British Columbia.
- Issue: Do the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples have a claim to the land based on aboriginal title?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Aboriginal title is a right protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
- Rationale: The land was never ceded through treaty or conquered.
- Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd (2019)
- Facts: A bankrupt oil and gas company left behind orphan wells, and the trustee disclaimed responsibility for the environmental liabilities.
- Issue: Can a trustee disclaim responsibility for environmental cleanup?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Bankruptcy does not absolve a company from its environmental obligations.
- Rationale: The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not permit a receiver to avoid environmental obligations.
Administrative
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999)
- Facts: Baker, an immigrant, was ordered deported without a fair hearing.
- Issue: Is procedural fairness required in immigration decisions?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Procedural fairness is required in administrative decisions affecting individual rights.
- Rationale: The lack of a fair hearing violated principles of administrative law.
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008)
- Facts: Dunsmuir was dismissed from his employment with the New Brunswick government and sought judicial review.
- Issue: What is the appropriate standard of review in administrative law?
- Holding: Reasonableness.
- Rule of Law: Introduced a simplified standard of review framework.
- Rationale: To clarify the law of judicial review.
Family Law
Moge v Moge (1992)
- Facts: After divorce, Mrs. Moge was unable to maintain her standard of living despite spousal support.
- Issue: Can spousal support be modified based on economic hardship post-divorce?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Economic hardship can be a factor in modifying spousal support.
- Rationale: The Divorce Act allows for such considerations.
Young v Young (1993)
- Facts: After divorce, Mr. Young was granted access to his children but imposed his religious views during visits.
- Issue: Can the court restrict the father’s religious discussions during access visits?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: The best interests of the child are paramount in access decisions.
- Rationale: The father’s conduct was not in the best interests of the children.
Pettkus v Becker (1980)
- Facts: A common-law couple accumulated assets, but only the man’s name was on the title.
- Issue: Is the woman entitled to a share of the assets?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Unjust enrichment occurs when one party benefits at the expense of another without legal reason.
- Rationale: The woman contributed to the accumulation of assets, making it unjust for her to receive nothing
M v H (1999)
- Facts: A same-sex couple separated, and one partner sought spousal support.
- Issue: Are same-sex couples entitled to spousal support?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not permissible under the Charter.
- Rationale: The existing law was discriminatory and needed to be amended to include same-sex couples.
Environmental
Friends of the Oldman River Society v Canada (1992)
- Facts: A dam was approved without a full environmental assessment.
- Issue: Is a full environmental assessment required for federal projects?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Federal projects require a comprehensive environmental assessment.
- Rationale: Federal jurisdiction over environmental matters.
114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town) (2001)
- Facts: The town of Hudson passed a bylaw restricting the use of pesticides.
- Issue: Does the town have the authority to restrict pesticide use?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Municipalities have the power to pass bylaws for the health and well-being of their residents.
- Rationale: The bylaw was a valid exercise of the town’s powers under the Cities and Towns Act.
Imperial Oil Ltd v Quebec (Minister of the Environment) (2003)
- Facts: Imperial Oil was ordered to decontaminate a polluted site.
- Issue: Can the government impose retroactive environmental obligations?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Governments can impose retroactive obligations for environmental protection.
- Rationale: The need to protect the environment justified the retroactive application of the law.
Intellectual
Harvard College v Canada (2002)
- Facts: Harvard College sought a patent for a genetically modified mouse.
- Issue: Can higher life forms be patented?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Higher life forms are not patentable.
- Rationale: Ethical and social policy considerations.
Employment
Machtinger v HOJ Industries (1992)
- Facts: Machtinger’s employment was terminated without reasonable notice.
- Issue: Is an employment contract clause that violates employment standards enforceable?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Contract clauses that violate statutory minimums are void.
- Rationale: The clause violated the Employment Standards Act, making it unenforceable.
McKinley v BC Tel (2001)
- Facts: McKinley was dismissed for dishonesty.
- Issue: Is dishonesty always a ground for dismissal?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Context matters in determining if dishonesty is a ground for dismissal.
- Rationale: A contextual approach is more fair.
Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd (1997)
- Facts: Wallace was dismissed without cause and without reasonable notice.
- Issue: Can damages for bad faith in the manner of dismissal be awarded?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Employers owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal.
- Rationale: The manner of Wallace’s dismissal caused him mental distress, warranting additional damages.
Welcome to this curated shortlist of pivotal Canadian legal cases, designed to serve as a starting point for law students and legal enthusiasts. These summaries aim to provide a quick snapshot of landmark decisions across various areas of law, from Constitutional Law to Indigenous Law. This quick reference quide can be your starting point for essential Canadian case law.
Disclaimer:
- Not legal advice: the information provided here is not legal advice. It is intended for informational and educational purposes only. Seek professional advice for your specific legal needs.
- Not comprehensive: these summaries are not exhaustive and only capture the main points of each case, in my opinion. They are meant to offer a brief overview and should not replace a thorough reading and understanding of the full case. If you’re looking for guidance on how to brief a case effectively, refer to my concise guide on this topic, also available on this website.
- Updates and changes: laws change, and case law evolves. I cannot guarantee that this list will be updated to reflect new developments or overturned decisions. Conduct your own research and keep your case notes updated.
Constitutional Law
- Facts: David Oakes was charged with drug trafficking and possession. The Crown failed to prove the purpose of trafficking, but Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act presumed guilt unless the accused could prove otherwise.
- Issue: Is Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act inconsistent with the Charter’s Section 11(d) presumption of innocence?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Oakes Test for Section 1 justification under the Charter.
- Rationale: The law was not a reasonable limit on Charter rights.
- Facts: Quebec passed a law making French the only language for outdoor signs.
- Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Laws that restrict freedom of expression must be justified.
- Rationale: The law was not justified under Section 1 of the Charter.
- Dissent/Concurrence: None.
Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia (1989)
- Facts: Andrews, a non-citizen, was denied the ability to practice law in British Columbia.
- Issue: Does the law discriminate based on nationality?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Discrimination based on nationality is not allowed unless justifiable.
- Rationale: The law was not justified under Section 1 of the Charter.
R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985)
- Facts: Big M Drug Mart was charged for opening on Sundays, violating the Lord’s Day Act.
- Issue: Does the Lord’s Day Act violate freedom of religion?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Laws must not infringe upon freedom of religion.
- Rationale: The Act imposed Christian observances, violating the Charter.
Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998)
- Facts: The Supreme Court was asked to advise on the legality of Quebec’s unilateral secession.
- Issue: Can Quebec secede from Canada unilaterally?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Unilateral secession is not legal under the Constitution.
- Rationale: Secession would require a constitutional amendment approved by the federal government and other provinces.
Criminal Law
- Facts: Doctors were charged for performing abortions outside of hospitals, contrary to the Criminal Code.
- Issue: Does the Criminal Code’s abortion provision violate a woman’s right to security of the person under Section 7 of the Charter?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Security of the person includes control over one’s bodily integrity free from state interference.
- Rationale: The provision created risks to women’s health and thus violated their right to security of the person.
- Dissent/Concurrence: Several, including one that argued the law should be struck down for different reasons.
- Facts: Keegstra, a teacher, was charged for promoting hate speech.
- Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Limitations on freedom of expression can be justified.
- Rationale: The law aims to prevent harm to targeted groups.
- Facts: Sharpe was charged with possession of child pornography.
- Issue: Does the law violate freedom of expression?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Limitations on freedom of expression can be justified.
- Rationale: Protecting children from exploitation is a valid reason.
- Facts: Grant was stopped by police and found to be carrying a firearm.
- Issue: Was the evidence admissible despite being obtained through detention?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Evidence may be admissible if it doesn’t bring the justice system into disrepute.
- Rationale: The evidence was reliable and the violation was not egregious.
- Facts: Stinchcombe was charged with criminal breach of trust and theft. The Crown withheld evidence from the defense.
- Issue: Is the Crown obligated to disclose all evidence to the defense?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Full disclosure by the Crown is necessary for a fair trial.
- Rationale: The right to make full answer and defense is one of the pillars of criminal justice.
- Facts: Jordan was charged with drug offenses, but his trial was delayed.
- Issue: Does an unreasonable delay in bringing a case to trial violate the accused’s rights?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Unreasonable delay violates the right to be tried within a reasonable time.
- Rationale: The delay was beyond the acceptable limit, infringing on the accused’s Charter rights.
Contract
- Facts: Hadley’s mill was inoperable due to a broken crankshaft. Baxendale delayed the delivery, causing further loss.
- Issue: Is Baxendale liable for the loss caused by the delay?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Damages must be foreseeable at the time of contract formation.
- Rationale: Baxendale was not aware that a delay would result in such a specific loss.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
- Facts: Carbolic Smoke Ball Co promised £100 to anyone who contracted influenza after using their product. Carlill did and claimed the reward.
- Issue: Is the company’s promise enforceable?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Unilateral contracts can be binding if there is an intention to create legal relations.
- Rationale: The company made a clear promise with the intent to be legally bound.
Bank of America Canada v Mutual Trust Co (2002)
- Facts: Bank of America and Mutual Trust had a dispute over priority in a bankruptcy case.
- Issue: Which bank has priority in the distribution of assets?
- Holding: Bank of America.
- Rule of Law: Priority is determined by the timing of the security interest.
- Rationale: Bank of America registered its interest first.
Tercon Contractors Ltd. v British Columbia (2010)
- Facts: Tercon Contractors sued for breach of a bidding contract.
- Issue: Is the exclusion clause in the contract valid?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Exclusion clauses can be invalid if unconscionable.
- Rationale: The clause was unfair and against public policy.
- Facts: Bhasin’s contract was not renewed, causing financial loss.
- Issue: Is there a duty of good faith in contract renewals?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Duty of good faith in contractual performance.
- Rationale: Promotes fairness and predictability in contracts.
Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp (2014)
- Facts: Sattva Capital claimed a finder’s fee based on a contract with Creston Moly.
- Issue: Is Sattva entitled to the finder’s fee?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Contracts should be interpreted based on the parties’ intentions.
- Rationale: The contract’s language and context supported Sattva’s claim.
Indigenous Law
Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests) (2004)
- Facts: The Haida Nation opposed the transfer of a tree farm license on Haida Gwaii, claiming it would adversely affect their land claims.
- Issue: Does the government have a duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before making decisions that affect claimed but not yet legally established Aboriginal lands?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: The Crown has a duty to consult with Indigenous communities when contemplating actions that might adversely impact potential but not yet legally established Aboriginal rights or title.
- Rationale: The duty to consult exists to preserve Aboriginal interests while land claims are ongoing.
Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia (2014)
- Facts: The Tsilhqot’in Nation sought a declaration of Aboriginal title over their traditional lands.
- Issue: Can the Tsilhqot’in Nation claim Aboriginal title over the lands?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Aboriginal title can be claimed over a specific, defined area if the Indigenous group can prove exclusive occupation.
- Rationale: The Tsilhqot’in Nation had a semi-nomadic existence but had sufficiently exclusive occupation of the land.
Tort Law
Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co (1928)
- Facts: Palsgraf was injured due to the actions of a railroad guard helping a passenger.
- Issue: Is the railroad liable for injuries to Palsgraf?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Liability in negligence requires foreseeability of harm.
- Rationale: The railroad could not have foreseen harm to Palsgraf from the guard’s actions.
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) (This is a UK case but foundational in Canadian tort law)
- Facts: Mrs. Donoghue fell ill after drinking a ginger beer that had a decomposed snail in it.
- Issue: Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumer of a product?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.
- Rationale: There was a foreseeable risk of harm.
- Facts: Childs was injured by Desormeaux, who was driving drunk after leaving a party.
- Issue: Are social hosts liable for the actions of their intoxicated guests?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Social hosts do not owe a duty of care to third parties injured by their intoxicated guests.
- Rationale: The hosts did not create a risk; they merely failed to act to reduce the risk created by Desormeaux.
Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board (2007)
- Facts: Hill was wrongfully convicted due to police negligence in investigation.
- Issue: Can police be held liable for negligence in criminal investigations?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Police can be held liable for negligence if it leads to a wrongful conviction.
- Rationale: The police owed a duty of care to Hill, and their negligence led to his wrongful conviction.
Property
- Facts: Bruce sold land to Edwards but failed to disclose that part of it was a swamp.
- Issue: Is failure to disclose material facts a misrepresentation?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Silence can amount to misrepresentation.
- Rationale: Bruce had a duty to disclose material facts affecting the land’s value.
Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997)
- Facts: The Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples claimed ownership of land in British Columbia.
- Issue: Do the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples have a claim to the land based on aboriginal title?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Aboriginal title is a right protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
- Rationale: The land was never ceded through treaty or conquered.
Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd (2019)
- Facts: A bankrupt oil and gas company left behind orphan wells, and the trustee disclaimed responsibility for the environmental liabilities.
- Issue: Can a trustee disclaim responsibility for environmental cleanup?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Bankruptcy does not absolve a company from its environmental obligations.
- Rationale: The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not permit a receiver to avoid environmental obligations.
Administrative
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999)
- Facts: Baker, an immigrant, was ordered deported without a fair hearing.
- Issue: Is procedural fairness required in immigration decisions?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Procedural fairness is required in administrative decisions affecting individual rights.
- Rationale: The lack of a fair hearing violated principles of administrative law.
Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008)
- Facts: Dunsmuir was dismissed from his employment with the New Brunswick government and sought judicial review.
- Issue: What is the appropriate standard of review in administrative law?
- Holding: Reasonableness.
- Rule of Law: Introduced a simplified standard of review framework.
- Rationale: To clarify the law of judicial review.
Family Law
- Facts: After divorce, Mrs. Moge was unable to maintain her standard of living despite spousal support.
- Issue: Can spousal support be modified based on economic hardship post-divorce?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Economic hardship can be a factor in modifying spousal support.
- Rationale: The Divorce Act allows for such considerations.
- Facts: After divorce, Mr. Young was granted access to his children but imposed his religious views during visits.
- Issue: Can the court restrict the father’s religious discussions during access visits?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: The best interests of the child are paramount in access decisions.
- Rationale: The father’s conduct was not in the best interests of the children.
- Facts: A common-law couple accumulated assets, but only the man’s name was on the title.
- Issue: Is the woman entitled to a share of the assets?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Unjust enrichment occurs when one party benefits at the expense of another without legal reason.
- Rationale: The woman contributed to the accumulation of assets, making it unjust for her to receive nothing
- Facts: A same-sex couple separated, and one partner sought spousal support.
- Issue: Are same-sex couples entitled to spousal support?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not permissible under the Charter.
- Rationale: The existing law was discriminatory and needed to be amended to include same-sex couples.
Environmental
Friends of the Oldman River Society v Canada (1992)
- Facts: A dam was approved without a full environmental assessment.
- Issue: Is a full environmental assessment required for federal projects?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Federal projects require a comprehensive environmental assessment.
- Rationale: Federal jurisdiction over environmental matters.
114957 Canada Ltée (Spraytech, Société d’arrosage) v Hudson (Town) (2001)
- Facts: The town of Hudson passed a bylaw restricting the use of pesticides.
- Issue: Does the town have the authority to restrict pesticide use?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Municipalities have the power to pass bylaws for the health and well-being of their residents.
- Rationale: The bylaw was a valid exercise of the town’s powers under the Cities and Towns Act.
Imperial Oil Ltd v Quebec (Minister of the Environment) (2003)
- Facts: Imperial Oil was ordered to decontaminate a polluted site.
- Issue: Can the government impose retroactive environmental obligations?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Governments can impose retroactive obligations for environmental protection.
- Rationale: The need to protect the environment justified the retroactive application of the law.
Intellectual
Harvard College v Canada (2002)
- Facts: Harvard College sought a patent for a genetically modified mouse.
- Issue: Can higher life forms be patented?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Higher life forms are not patentable.
- Rationale: Ethical and social policy considerations.
Employment
Machtinger v HOJ Industries (1992)
- Facts: Machtinger’s employment was terminated without reasonable notice.
- Issue: Is an employment contract clause that violates employment standards enforceable?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Contract clauses that violate statutory minimums are void.
- Rationale: The clause violated the Employment Standards Act, making it unenforceable.
- Facts: McKinley was dismissed for dishonesty.
- Issue: Is dishonesty always a ground for dismissal?
- Holding: No.
- Rule of Law: Context matters in determining if dishonesty is a ground for dismissal.
- Rationale: A contextual approach is more fair.
Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd (1997)
- Facts: Wallace was dismissed without cause and without reasonable notice.
- Issue: Can damages for bad faith in the manner of dismissal be awarded?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule of Law: Employers owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal.
- Rationale: The manner of Wallace’s dismissal caused him mental distress, warranting additional damages.