Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
Supreme Court | Federal Court | Federal Appeal | Ontario Civil | Ontario Criminal | Tax Court

Federal Court

Case Law is a sample selection from the weekly summaries of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions published in Law Times newspaper.

Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in the newspaper or sampled here can be obtained by calling Case Law's photocopy department at:
(905) 841-6472 in Toronto,
(800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or
(800) 263-2037 in other provinces.
To request a case online

For more Case Law every week, subscribe to Law Times.



Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief

Application was filed with National Energy Board pursuant to s. 52 of National Energy Board Act (Can.), to obtain certificate of public convenience and necessity for constructing and operating 4,500 km long pipeline system between Alberta and New Brunswick. More than 1,500 km of new pipeline would be constructed. Project was subject to board’s approval process. This was motion for interlocutory injunction before commencement of proceeding before board until publication of official languages’ report or inclusion of French version of essential documents of application on board’s website. Motion dismissed. Parliament’s clear intention was to make Federal Court of Appeal only court that had jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review or appeals against rulings made by board. Purpose of interlocutory injunction motion was to challenge ruling of board. Federal Court was not appropriate forum. Appropriate way for moving parties to request stay of proceedings before board was to challenge board’s ruling before Federal Court of Appeal. Federal Court did not have jurisdiction with respect to main proceeding so therefore, it could not have jurisdiction to grant interlocutory relief. Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear motion.
Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement c. Québec (Office national de l’Énergie) (Feb. 16, 2015, F.C., Yves de Montigny J., File No. T-167-15) 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 444.

Human Rights Legislation


Failure to analyze accommodation to point of undue hardship was incorrect and unreasonable

Applicant was seafarer who sought Marine Medical Certificate confirming his physical and mental fitness for purpose of employment. Applicant was examined by Transport Canada marine medical examiner who raised concerns regarding applicant’s fitness for seafaring duty. On August 31, 2010, Transport Canada informed applicant that he was unfit to hold certificate. Decision was based on alcohol dependence, major depression and developmental disorder. Applicant unsuccessfully appealed to Transportation Appeal Tribunal. Thereafter, applicant addressed his alcoholism and was issued three-month restricted certificate in 2011 that found he was fit for duty with specific limitations. In October 2012, applicant was issued unrestricted certificate. Applicant filed human rights complaint in June 2012 alleging discrimination on basis of disability. Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended dismissal of complaint on basis of no adverse differential treatment and bona fide safety justification. Applicant applied for judicial review of commission’s decision. Application allowed. Commission’s investigation report failed to analyze, as was required, whether Transport Canada had accommodated persons with characteristics of applicant without incurring undue hardship. Failure to analyze accommodation to point of undue hardship was both incorrect and unreasonable. Matter was remitted to commission for redetermination of whether Transport Canada accommodated applicant to point of undue hardship.
Walsh v. Canada (Attorney General) (Feb. 23, 2015, F.C., Donald J. Rennie J., File No. T-1207-14) 251 A.C.W.S. (3d) 119.

Administrative Law


Decision to revoke applicant’s security clearance was quashed

Applicant had worked for ground handling company that operated out of Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto for past 16 years. She also held part-time job from October 2012 to April 2014 as ramp agent. Both positions required applicant to hold valid transportation security clearance, which allowed her to access restricted areas at airport. On November 8, 2013, Chief of Security Screening Programs for Transport Canada wrote to applicant saying that she was being investigated for associating with leader of drug importation ring at airport and that she herself was suspect in criminal investigation for drug importation. Applicant denied involvement in any drug smuggling. On April 24, 2014, applicant was advised of decision to cancel her security clearance. Applicant was immediately terminated from her part-time job. Applicant applied for judicial review of decision to cancel her security clearance. Application granted. Respondent failed to discharge requirement of procedural fairness. Applicant had lost her employment on basis of allegations that sometime perhaps between 2007 and 2009, or perhaps subsequent to 2009 and 2013, she associated, in some unspecified way, with certain unspecified individual in major drug importation scheme at airport. Other than minor charge many years ago for theft of children’s Tylenol from drug store, applicant had no criminal record. She had never been interviewed in respect of alleged criminal activity relied on in decision letter. She had never been charged in respect of those matters. Applicant was unable to respond to case against her, as she knew neither time, date, nor precise activity which gave rise to revocation. Advisory Body’s conclusion from absence of transactions in applicant’s bank account consistent with drug trafficking that applicant was remunerated by cut of drugs themselves was, in absence of further information, neither transparent nor rational. Decision to revoke applicant’s security clearance was quashed.
Meyler v. Canada (Attorney General) (Mar. 20, 2015, F.C., Donald J. Rennie J., File No. T-1197-14) 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 542.

Aboriginal Peoples


Crown gave First Nation notice of mine expansion project and afforded opportunity for consultation

Project was proposed expansion of open pit oil-sands mine. Project would be carried out on traditional lands of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) Crown invited the ACFN to express its concerns to joint review panel charged with conducting project’s environmental assessment. Minister decided project was justified subject to conditions. ACFN asserted Crown made decision in breach of its duties to consult and accommodate ACFN. ACFN asserted Crown rushed through consultation process and issued decision before completing consultation. ACFN asserted process lacked transparency because Crown kept from ACFN its advice to Cabinet, proposed project conditions and information it received. ACFN asserted Crown breached its commitments to CFN during consultation process. Applicant sought judicial review. Application dismissed. Crown gave ACFN notice and afforded ACFN opportunity for consultation. ACFN participated throughout six-year process. Crown seriously considered views of ACFN. Measures Crown took to accommodate ACFN corroborated its serious consideration of ACFN’s concerns. Crown made changes that addressed concerns ACFN raised during consultation. Crown accommodated ACFN’s concerns by imposing long list of conditions. Duty to accommodate did not guarantee Aboriginal groups everything that they wished to obtain. Federal-provincial distribution of powers limited Crown’s ability to accommodate the ACFN because lands and mineral rights belonged to province of Alberta. Consultation process was not rushed. Record did not reveal lack of transparency, but showed that Crown repeatedly shared information, replied to ACFN’s correspondent, met ACFN’s representative and made policy decisions in light of ACFN’s concerns. Applicant was not entitled to disclosure of Minister’s advice to Cabinet and Crown did not have to justify Cabinet’s decisions on project. Claim that Crown created and deceived reasonable expectation that panel review process would heavily inform Crown’s decision-making for project was rejected. Record did not support contention that Crown was insufficiently responsive to ACFN’s concerns. Record did not reveal insufficient attention by Crown to project’s cumulative effects. Evidence established fact that ACFN will continue to be consulted in future.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) (Dec. 9, 2014, F.C., Danièle Tremblay-Lamer J., File No. T-13-14) 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 541.

Charter of Rights


Denial of media’s access to inmate for purpose of interview was reasonable

Application by three media companies for judicial review of decision of prison warden who refused their request to interview inmate named OK. Applicants created joint enterprise for purpose of interviewing OK to produce documentary film about his story. Request was denied because it would result in significant disruptions to institution and it would endanger its security. Inmates would have to be confined to their living units for duration of interview and this would affect work, school and other program routines and if interview was conducted outside business hours it would disrupt inmates’ access to leisure activities. This could spark unrest among inmate population. OK kept low profile at institution but release of interview would result in additional security concerns within institution and safety concerns for OK. At issue were rights of applicants to freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and public’s right to know. Application dismissed. Decision to deny applicants’ access to OK for purpose of interview was reasonable and sufficient reasons were provided for that decision. Right to freedom of expression was not absolute and it was subject to reasonable limits. In context of penitentiary this right had to be balanced against need to protect security of institution and safety of persons, which included staff, prison population and any particular inmate. Penitentiaries were heavily restricted environments and members of public could only enter to visit inmates under very strict conditions. Penitentiary was not place where public had expectation of exercising its right to freedom of expression. Warden was called upon to balance freedom of expression against security and safety imperatives. She had experience and expertise to make such discretionary decisions and her decision was owed significant deference.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Warden of Bowden Institution (Feb. 13, 2015, F.C., Richard G. Mosley J., File No. T-1651-14) 119 W.C.B. (2d) 465.

Aboriginal Peoples


Interlocutory injunction to prohibit reopening of fishery granted

In 2003, respondent Minister closed commercial herring fishery in Haida Gwaii, archipelago off west coast of British Columbia, due to concern about weak stocks. Fishery remained closed while annual stock assessments conducted by federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) failed to demonstrate adequate level of abundance. However, in 2011, DFO introduced new method of calculating abundance that lowered level at which fishery could be authorized. For 2014 season, Department of Fisheries and Oceans recommended against reopening on basis there was insufficient evidence of durable and sustained recovery. Minister did not accept recommendation and authorized reopening. Applicants, representatives of indigenous people of Haida Gwaii, whom Supreme Court of Canada had acknowledged had strong prima facie case of Aboriginal title to all of Haida Gwaii, and who had entered various interim agreements with federal and provincial governments regarding management of lands, waters and resources of area, asked commercial fishermen not to fish that year. Fishermen agreed. In 2014, on strength of one forecast that indicated stocks would be above level at which fishery could be authorized, and notwithstanding evidence of decline in stocks between 2013 and 2014, and predicted decline between 2014 and 2015, DFO recommended limited fishery (harvest rate of 10 per cent) in 2015. Applicants commenced action and applied for interlocutory injunction to prohibit reopening of fishery on basis herring stocks, and their Aboriginal rights, would be endangered if commercial fishery allowed. Application allowed. Respondent acknowledged that regulation of fishery and duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal groups constituted serious issues. High degree of uncertainty in forecasts, combined with fact stocks had declined, and were expected to decline further despite there having been no fishing, made it more likely irreparable harm would occur if commercial fishery opened in 2015. Potential for real and serious risk of harm even greater when one considered that ability to fish roe herring central to applicants’ culture, traditions and way of life, and that applicants had strong prima facie case of aboriginal title. Given that context, failure to consult meaningfully with applicants also constituted irreparable harm. Given agreements in place, as well as special conservation and ecological concerns, no question balance of convenience favoured applicants. Applicants should not be required to provide undertaking as to damages in circumstances. Minister (or DFO) prohibited from opening commercial herring fishery for 2015 season.
Haida Nation v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) (Mar. 6, 2015, F.C., Michael D. Manson J., File No. T-73-15) 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 361.

Air Law


Refusal to give security clearance upheld on judicial review

In December 2012, applicant began working at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in part-time position with Servisair. He began working for Air Canada in part-time position in March 2013, and was working full-time by April 2013. On January 15, 2013, he applied for transportation security clearance required to work airport. Officials at Transportation Security Clearance Program requested Law Enforcement Records Check from RCMP. RCMP reported that applicant had been charged with weapons offences and drug offences in 2007, but that charges had been withdrawn. RCMP also reported that known associates of applicant all had previous criminal convictions relating to violence, drugs, or weapons. Applicant’s application was referred to Transportation Security Clearance Advisory Board. Advisory Board made recommendation that Minister refuse clearance based on conclusion that applicant may be prone or induced to commit act or assist or abet another person to commit act that may unlawfully interfere with civil aviation. Applicant sought judicial review of decision. Application dismissed. While it may seem harsh to applicant who had conducted himself appropriately since his involvement or association with criminal elements ending in 2007, Minister was entitled to rely upon those events given Ministerial discretion to refuse to give security clearances based on low threshold of whether person may be prone or induced to unlawfully interfere with civil aviation. Court could not substitute its opinion for persons who were experienced in those matters. Decision fell within range of reasonable acceptable outcomes based on evidentiary record that was before Advisory Board and Ministerial delegate and was justified by transparent and intelligible reasons.
Christie v. Canada (Attorney General) (Feb. 19, 2015, F.C., Peter Annis J., File No. T-1285-14) 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 185.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 4 of 36

  • Law society voters speak out
    Law society voters speak out What are the major issues in the Law Society of Upper Canada bencher election? Law Times spoke to some of the voters to hear their…
  • Irwin Cotler receives human rights award
    Irwin Cotler receives human rights award The Law Society of Upper Canada chose Liberal MP Irwin Cotler as the recipient of its first human rights award. Cotler, an international human rights…
  • Flip Your Wig relaunched
    Flip Your Wig relaunched After its inaugural campaign last year, Flip Your Wig has returned as legal organizations aim to raise awareness about access to justice. At last week's…
More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership good for Canada?
Yes, Canada must be a part of these deals and expand free trade
No, it will imperil important sectors and deliver few benefits
It's too early to tell