This week, the Supreme Court of Canada issued two rulings,
granted two leave to appeal applications, and dismissed three
applications for leave to appeal, in cases likely to be of interest
to Canadian businesses and professionals.
In R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, the Supreme Court
of Canada ruled that the police engaged in an unconstitutional
search and seizure when they obtained from an Internet service
provider — without prior judicial authorization — the
subscriber information associated with an IP address.
The Supreme Court of Canada also ruled in Canadian Artists' Representation v. National
Gallery of Canada, 2014 SCC 42 that, inter alia, establishing a
minimum fee for the use of existing works does not affect any of
the rights conferred on copyright holders under s. 3 of the
Copyright Act. Moreover, the Court ruled that the National Gallery
of Canada failed to bargain in good faith by refusing to implement
minimum fees for the licensing or assignment of the copyright in
existing artistic works.
Leave to appeal was granted by the Court in Attorney General of Alberta v. Moloney, a
"division of powers" case which addresses whether a
province can require the payment of a judgment debt created by a
provincial statute when the debt has been released under federal
The Supreme Court also granted leave to appeal in Stuart Olson Dominion Construction Ltd. v.
Structural Heavy Steel, which involves the issue of whether the
filing of a lien bond in court in the full amount of a
subcontractor's lien claim extinguishes a contractor's
obligation to that subcontractor under the trust provisions of The
Builders' Lien Act of Manitoba.
The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal in Vivona v. Royal Bank of Canada, refusing to
hear the issue of whether a bank's non-compliance with the
Canada Small Business Financing Regulations invalidates or limits
the personal guarantee of a loan.
Leave to appeal was also denied in Schober v. Tyson Creek Hydro
Corporation, a case involving a failed attempt by a representative
who had given oral discovery evidence on behalf of a party to
obtain a declaration that the evidence was subject to an implied
undertaking of confidentiality.
The Court also refused leave to appeal in Lower v. Hay — a case which explored the
extent to which a witness can be insulated from a costs award based
on the "witness immunity rule."
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).