Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants, (2015) 470 N.R. 324 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 07, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 470 N.R. 324 (SCC);2015 SCC 23;470 NR 324;[2015] SCJ No 23 (QL);383 DLR (4th) 429;[2015] CarswellNS 313;[2015] 2 SCR 182;[2015] ACS no 23

Abbott v. WBLI Chartered Accountants (2015), 470 N.R. 324 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.R. TBEd. AP.021

White Burgess Langille Inman, carrying on business as WBLI Chartered Accountants and R. Brian Burgess (appellants) v. Abbott and Haliburton Company Limited, A.W. Allen & Son Limited, Berwick Building Supplies Limited, Bishop's Falls Building Supplies Limited, Arthur Boudreau & Fils Ltée, Brennan Contractors& Supplies Ltd., F. J. Brideau & Fils Limitée, Cabot Building Supplies Company (1988) Limited, Robert Churchill Building Supplies Limited, CDL Holdings Limited, formerly Chester Dawe Limited, Fraser Supplies (1980) Ltd., R. D. Gillis Building Supplies Limited, Yvon Godin Ltd., Truro Wood Industries Limited/Home Care Properties Limited, Hann's Hardware and Sporting Goods Limited, Harbour Breton Building Supplies Limited, Hillier's Trades Limited, Hubcraft Building Supplies Limited, Lumbermart Limited, Maple Leaf Farm Supplies Limited, S.W. Mifflin Ltd., Nauss Brothers Limited, O'Leary Farmers' Co-operative Ass'n. Ltd., Pellerin Building Supplies Inc., Pleasant Supplies Incorporated, J. I. Pritchett & Sons Limited, Centre Multi-Décor de Richibucto Ltée, U. J. Robichaud & Sons Woodworkers Limited, Quincaillerie Saint-Louis Ltée, R & J Swinamer's Supplies Limited, 508686 N.B. INC. operating as T.N.T. Insulation and Building Supplies, Taylor Lumber and Building Supplies Limited, Two by Four Lumber Sales Ltd., Walbourne Enterprises Ltd., Western Bay Hardware Limited, White's Construction Limited, D. J. Williams and Sons Limited and Woodland Building Supplies Limited (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada and Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) (interveners)

(35492; 2015 SCC 23; 2015 CSC 23)

Indexed As: Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon, JJ.

April 30, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs sued for negligent misrepresentation alleging that the audited financial statements of AWARD Wholesale and Retail Distributors Ltd. were prepared negligently by the defendants, contained incorrect and misleading information, were not performed in accordance with General Assurance and Auditing Standards, and contained material deviations from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The defendants denied the allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, the plaintiffs filed affidavits of O'Hearn, who dealt with AWARD as a sales representative, and MacMillan, an expert witness and partner at Grant Thornton in Halifax. The defendants moved to strike the entire O'Hearn affidavit and, in the alternative, portions thereof, and the entire MacMillan affidavit.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at 317 N.S.R.(2d) 283; 1003 A.P.R. 283, struck numerous portions of the O'Hearn affidavit on the basis that they were opinion, innuendo, irrelevant, inadmissible hearsay, pleading and argument. The court then struck the affidavit in its entirety. The court also struck the MacMillan affidavit in its entirety, finding that MacMillan was in an apparent conflict of interest. The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal and, if leave was granted, appealed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 330 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 1046 A.P.R. 301, denied leave to appeal respecting the plaintiffs' complaints that the motions judge committed reversible error in relying on Civil Procedure Rule 55.04, and in striking the O'Hearn affidavit. The court granted leave to appeal on the complaint that the motions judge erred in excluding MacMillan's affidavit, and allowed the appeal (MacDonald, C.J.N.S., dissenting) respecting the MacMillan affidavit. The defendants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Evidence - Topic 7000

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada determined a basic standard for the threshold admissibility of expert opinion evidence - The court stated that "[e]xpert witnesses have a special duty to the court to provide fair, objective and non-partisan assistance. A proposed expert witness who is unable or unwilling to comply with this duty is not qualified to give expert opinion evidence and should not be permitted to do so. Less fundamental concerns about an expert's independence and impartiality should be taken into account in the broader, overall weighing of the costs and benefits of receiving the evidence." - See paragraphs 1 and 2.

Evidence - Topic 7000

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "... expert witnesses have a duty to the court to give fair, objective and non-partisan opinion evidence. They must be aware of this duty and able and willing to carry it out. If they do not meet this threshold requirement, their evidence should not be admitted. Once this threshold is met, however, concerns about an expert witness's independence or impartiality should be considered as part of the overall weighing of the costs and benefits of admitting the evidence. This common law approach is, of course, subject to statutory and related provisions which may establish different rules of admissibility." - See paragraph 10.

Evidence - Topic 7000

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "[t]o the modern general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible there are many qualifications. One of them relates to opinion evidence, which is the subject of a complicated exclusionary rule. Witnesses are to testify as to the facts which they perceived, not as to the inferences - that is, the opinions - that they drew from them. ... While various rationales have been offered for this exclusionary rule, the most convincing is probably that these ready-formed inferences are not helpful to the trier of fact and might even be misleading ... Not all opinion evidence is excluded, however. Most relevant for this case is the exception for expert opinion evidence on matters requiring specialized knowledge." - See paragraphs 14 and 15.

Evidence - Topic 7000

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the current legal framework for expert opinion evidence - The court outlined the expert's duty to the court or tribunal - The court stated that "[t]here is little controversy about the broad outlines of the expert witness's duty to the court. As Anderson writes, '[t]he duty to provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion has been stated many times by common law courts around the world': p. 227. I would add that a similar duty exists in the civil law of Quebec" - Further, many provinces and territories had provided explicit guidance related to the duty of expert witnesses in their civil procedure rules - The court stated that "[u]nderlying the various formulations of the duty are three related concepts: impartiality, independence and absence of bias. The expert's opinion must be impartial in the sense that it reflects an objective assessment of the questions at hand. It must be independent in the sense that it is the product of the expert's independent judgment, uninfluenced by who has retained him or her or the outcome of the litigation. It must be unbiased in the sense that it does not unfairly favour one party's position over another. The acid test is whether the expert's opinion would not change regardless of which party retained him or her... . These concepts, of course, must be applied to the realities of adversary litigation. Experts are generally retained, instructed and paid by one of the adversaries. These facts alone do not undermine the expert's independence, impartiality and freedom from bias." - See paragraphs 16 to 32.

Evidence - Topic 7000.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Expert witness - Disqualification - Conflict of interest - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the expert's duties and the admissibility of opinion evidence - The court followed what it took to be the dominant view in the Canadian cases and held that an expert's lack of independence and impartiality went to the admissibility of the evidence in addition to being considered in relation to the weight to be given to the evidence if admitted - That approach was more in line with the basic structure of Canadian law relating to expert evidence and the importance Canadian jurisprudence had attached to the gatekeeping role of trial judges - See paragraphs 33 to 51.

Evidence - Topic 7000.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Expert witness - Disqualification - Conflict of interest - The Supreme Court of Canada described the duty owed by an expert witness to the court as: "the expert must be fair, objective and non-partisan" - The court stated that "... the appropriate threshold for admissibility flows from this duty. ... [T]he decision as to whether an expert should be permitted to give evidence despite having an interest or connection with the litigation is a matter of fact and degree. The concept of apparent bias is not relevant to the question of whether or not an expert witness will be unable or unwilling to fulfill its primary duty to the court. When looking at an expert's interest or relationship with a party, the question is not whether a reasonable observer would think that the expert is not independent. The question is whether the relationship or interest results in the expert being unable or unwilling to carry out his or her primary duty to the court to provide fair, non-partisan and objective assistance." - See paragraphs 46 and 50.

Evidence - Topic 7000.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Expert witness - Disqualification - Conflict of interest - The Supreme Court of Canada described the duty owed by an expert witness to the court as: "the expert must be fair, objective and non-partisan" - The court stated that "... the appropriate threshold for admissibility flows from this duty. ... The expert witnesses must, therefore, be aware of this primary duty to the court and able and willing to carry it out. While I would not go so far as to hold that the expert's independence and impartiality should be presumed absent challenge, my view is that absent such challenge, the expert's attestation or testimony recognizing and accepting the duty will generally be sufficient to establish that this threshold is met. Once the expert attests or testifies on oath to this effect, the burden is on the party opposing the admission of the evidence to show that there is a realistic concern that the expert's evidence should not be received because the expert is unable and/or unwilling to comply with that duty. ... [E]xclusion at the threshold stage of the analysis should occur only in very clear cases in which the proposed expert is unable or unwilling to provide the court with fair, objective and non-partisan evidence. Anything less than clear unwillingness or inability to do so should not lead to exclusion, but be taken into account in the overall weighing of costs and benefits of receiving the evidence." - See paragraphs 46 to 49.

Evidence - Topic 7000.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Expert witness - Disqualification - Conflict of interest - The plaintiffs used AWARD Wholesale and Retail Distributors Ltd., a federally incorporated company, to arrange purchasing economies of scale for their various operations in the building materials retail business - The plaintiffs sued the defendants, alleging that audited financial statements they prepared for AWARD were negligently prepared, contained incorrect and misleading information, were not performed in accordance with General Assurance and Auditing Standards, and contained material deviations from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles - The plaintiffs started the action after they had retained a different accounting firm, the Kentville office of Grant Thornton, to perform various accounting tasks and which in their view revealed problems with the defendants' previous work - The defendants denied the allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment - In response, the plaintiffs filed the affidavit of MacMillan, an expert witness and partner at the Halifax Office of Grant Thornton - The defendants moved to strike the entire MacMillan affidavit under rule 39, arguing that it contained opinions that were not independent and unbiased because of Grant Thornton's connections to the matter - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the motions judge erred in striking MacMillan's affidavit - The defendants appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 56 to 61.

Evidence - Topic 7000.1

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Expert witness - Disqualification - Conflict of interest - [See first and second Evidence - Topic 7000 ].

Evidence - Topic 7000.2

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Expert witness - Disqualification - Bias - [See first, second and fourth Evidence - Topic 7000 and first, second, third and fourth Evidence - Topic 7000.1 ].

Evidence - Topic 7002

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Acceptance, rejection and weight to be given to expert opinion - [See first, second and fourth Evidence - Topic 7000 , third Evidence - Topic 7000.1 and Practice - Topic 5710 ].

Practice - Topic 5710

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the admissibility of expert opinion evidence - The court stated that "[f]inding that expert evidence meets the basic threshold does not end the inquiry. Consistent with the structure of the analysis developed following Mohan [1994 S.C.C.] ... the judge must still take concerns about the expert's independence and impartiality into account in weighing the evidence at the gatekeeping stage. At this point, relevance, necessity, reliability and absence of bias can helpfully be seen as part of a sliding scale where a basic level must first be achieved in order to meet the admissibility threshold and thereafter continue to play a role in weighing the overall competing considerations in admitting the evidence. At the end of the day, the judge must be satisfied that the potential helpfulness of the evidence is not outweighed by the risk of the dangers materializing that are associated with expert evidence. ... However, under the Nova Scotia jurisprudence, ... it is not the role of a judge hearing a summary judgment motion in Nov`a Scotia to weigh the evidence, draw reasonable inferences from evidence or settle matters of credibility ... . A motions judge hearing a summary judgment application under the Nova Scotia rules must be satisfied that proposed expert evidence meets the threshold requirements for admissibility at the first step of the analysis, but should generally not engage in the second step cost-benefit analysis. That cost-benefit analysis, in anything other than the most obvious cases of inadmissibility, inevitably involves assigning weight - or at least potential weight - to the evidence." - See paragraphs 54 and 55.

Cases Noticed:

Lord Abinger v. Ashton (1873), L.R. 17 Eq. 358, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 12].

Graat v. R. - see R. v. Graat.

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, appld. [para. 17].

R. v. J.-L.J., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600; 261 N.R. 111; 2000 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Sekhon (A.S.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 272; 454 N.R. 41; 351 B.C.A.C. 1; 599 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Abbey (W.N.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 9; 97 O.R.(3d) 330; 2009 ONCA 624, leave to appeal refused [2010] 2 S.C.R. v; 409 N.R. 397, adopted [para. 18].

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387; 416 N.R. 307; 2011 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Trochym (S.J.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 239; 357 N.R. 201; 221 O.A.C. 281; 2007 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Boswell (L.) (2011), 280 O.A.C. 283; 85 C.R.(6th) 290; 2011 ONCA 283, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. M.C. (2014), 325 O.A.C. 1; 13 C.R.(7th) 396; 2014 ONCA 611, refd to. [para. 23].

Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v. Prudential Assurance Co., [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 68 (Q.B.), affd. [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 455 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Mouvement laïque québécois et al. v. Saguenay (City) (2015), 470 N.R. 1; 2015 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 36].

Fellowes, McNeil v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. et al. (1998), 79 O.T.C. 241; 40 O.R.(3d) 456 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Royal Trust Corp. of Canada et al. v. Fisherman et al., [2000] O.T.C. 425; 49 O.R.(3d) 187 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Docherty (K.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 3628; 2010 ONSC 3628 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 37].

Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co. et al. (2010), 293 N.S.R.(2d) 394; 928 A.P.R. 394; 2010 NSSC 315, refd to. [para. 37].

Handley v. Punnett, [2003] B.C.T.C. 294; 2003 BCSC 294, refd to. [para. 37].

Bank of Montreal v. Citak et al., [2001] O.T.C. 192 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Dean Construction Co. v. Dixon (M.J.) Construction Ltd. et al (2011), 5 C.L.R.(4th) 240; 2011 ONSC 4629, refd to. [para. 37].

Hutchingame v. Johnstone et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. 119; 2006 BCSC 271, refd to. [para. 37].

Alfano v. Piersanti et al. (2012), 291 O.A.C. 62; 2012 ONCA 297, refd to. [para. 37].

Kirby Lowbed Services Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 617; 2003 BCSC 617, refd to. [para. 37].

Gould v. Western Coal Corp. et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 5184; 7 B.L.R.(5th) 19; 2012 ONSC 5184, refd to. [para. 37].

United City Properties Ltd. v. Tong, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 111; 2010 BCSC 111, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Inco Ltd., [2006] O.T.C. 429; 80 O.R.(3d) 594 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Klassen (R.E.) (2003), 179 Man.R.(2d) 115; 2003 MBQB 253, refd to. [para. 39].

Gallant v. Brake-Patten (2012), 321 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 77; 996 A.P.R. 77; 2012 NLCA 23, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Violette (J.J.) et al., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. H19; 2008 BCSC 920, refd to. [para. 39].

Armchair Passenger Transport Ltd. v. Helical Bar Plc, [2003] EWHC 367 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. (Factortame Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for Transport, [2002] EWCA Civ 932; [2003] Q.B. 381, refd to. [para. 42].

Gallaher International Ltd. v. Tlais Enterprises Ltd., [2007] EWHC 464 (Comm.), refd to. [para. 42].

Meat Corp. of Namibia Ltd. v. Dawn Meats (U.K.) Ltd., [2011] EWHC 474 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 42].

Matchbet Ltd. v. Openbet Retail Ltd., [2013] EWHC 3067 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 42].

FGT Custodians Pty. Ltd. v. Fagenblat, [2003] VSCA 33 (Aust.), refd to. [para. 43].

Collins Thomson v. Clayton, [2002] NSWSC 366, refd to. [para. 43].

Kirch Communications Pty Ltd. v. Gene Engineering Pty Ltd., [2002] NSWSC 485, refd to. [para. 43].

SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd. v. Chipman, [2003] FCA 796; 131 F.C.R. 500, refd to. [para. 43].

Rodriguez v. Pacificare of Texas, Inc. (1993), 980 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 44].

Tagatz v. Marquette University (1988), 861 F.2d 1040 (7th Cir.), refd to [para. 44].

Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. ( 2014), 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir.), refd to. [para. 44].

Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 166; 2010 ONSC 166, refd to. [para. 52].

International Hi-Tech Industries Inc. v. FANUC Robotics Canada Ltd. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. B10; 2006 BCSC 2011, refd to. [para. 52].

Casurina Limited Partnership et al. v. Rio Algom Ltd. et al., [2002] O.T.C. 610; 28 B.L.R.(3d) 44 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

Prairie Well Servicing Ltd. v. Tundra Oil and Gas Ltd. (2000), 146 Man.R.(2d) 284; 2000 MBQB 52, refd to. [para. 52].

Deemar v. College of Veterinarians (Ont.), [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 420; 92 O.R.(3d) 97; 2008 ONCA 600, refd to. [para. 53].

Coady v. Burton Canada Co. et al. (2013), 333 N.S.R.(2d) 348; 1055 A.P.R. 348; 2013 NSCA 95, refd to. [para. 55].

Fougere v. Blunden Construction Ltd. et al. (2014), 345 N.S.R.(2d) 385; 1092 A.P.R. 385; 2014 NSCA 52, refd to. [para. 55].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anderson, Glenn R., Expert Evidence (3rd Ed. 2014), pp. 227 [para. 29]; 509 [para. 11].

Béchard, Donald, and Béchard, Jessica, L'expert (2011), Ch. 9 [para. 26].

Canadian Encyclopedic Digest (4th Ed.) (2014 Looseleaf Update, release 6), vol. 24, Title 62 - Evidence, §469 [para. 53].

Chamberland, Luc, Le nouveau Code de procédure civile commenté (2014), pp. 14, 121 [para. 26].

Corpus Juris Secundum (2008), vol. 32, p. 325 [para. 44].

Goudge Report - see Ontario, Report of Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario: Policy and Recommendations.

Halsbury's Laws of Canada: Evidence (2014 Reissue), paras. HEV-137 [para. 14]; HEV-152 [para. 53].

Hill, S. Casey, Tanovich, David M., and Strezos, Louis P., McWilliams' Canadian Criminal Evidence (5th ed. (loose-leaf)), vol. 2, s. 12:30.20.50 [para. 53].

Kaufman Report - see Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin.

Freckelton, Ian, and Selby, Hugh, Expert Evidence: Law, Practice, Procedure and Advocacy (5th Ed. 2013), pp. 35 [para. 43]; 186 to 188 [para. 44].

Lederman, Sidney N., Bryant, Alan W., and Fuerst, Michelle K., The Law of Evidence in Canada (4th Ed. 2014), pp. 783 [para. 11]; 788, 789, 800, 801 [para. 801]; 826, 827 [para. 53].

Malek, Hodge M. et al., Phipson on Evidence (18th Ed. 2013), pp. 1158, 1159 [para. 2].

Michell, Paul, and Mandhane, Rena, The Uncertain Duty of the Expert Witness (2005), 42 Alta. L. Rev. 635, pp. 638, 639 [para. 32].

Ontario, Attorney General, Report of the Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin (Kaufman Report) (1998), generally [para. 12].

Ontario, Report of Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario: Policy and Recommendations (Goudge Report) (2008), generally [para. 12].

Osborne, Coulter A., Civil Justice Reform Project: A Summary of Findings and Recommendations (2007), generally [para. 12].

Paciocco, David M., Taking a "Goudge" out of Bluster and Blarney: an "Evidence-Based Approach" to Expert Testimony (2009), 13 Can. Crim. L.R. 135, p. 152 [para. 46].

Paciocco, David M., "Unplugging Jukebox Testimony in an Adversarial System: Strategies for Changing the Tune on Partial Experts" (2009), 34 Queen's L.J. 565, pp. 595 [para. 53]; 597 [para. 47].

Paciocco, David M., and Stuesser, Lee, The Law of Evidence (7th ed. 2015), pp. 209, 210 [para. 23].

Royer, Jean-Claude, and Lavallée, Sophie, La preuve civile (4th Ed. 2008), generally [para. 26].

Tapper, Colin, Cross and Tapper on Evidence (12th ed. 2010), p. 530 [para. 14].

Thayer, James Bradley, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (1898) (1969 reprint), p. 524 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Alan D'Silva, James Wilson and Aaron Kreaden, for the appellants;

Jon Laxer and Brian F.P. Murphy, for the respondents;

Michael H. Morris, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Matthew Gourlay, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).

Solicitors of Record:

Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;

Lenczner Slaght Royce Smith Griffin, Toronto, Ontario; Groupe Murphy Group, Moncton, New Brunswick, for the respondents;

Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Attorney General of Canada;

Henein Hutchison, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario).

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 7, 2014, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Cromwell, J., delivered the following decision for the court in both official languages on April 30, 2015.