Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

• Author: Administrator
• Date: November 26, 2017

On one Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. It’s a summary of all appeals as well as leaves to appeal granted so you will know what the SCC will soon be dealing with (October 14 to November 23, 2017 inclusive).

Appeals

Aboriginal Law: Freedom of Religion
Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations), 2017 SCC 54 (36664)

The claim here (approval of a ski resort development) does not engage the right to freedom of conscience and religion under s. 2 (a) of the Charter. Section 2 (a) protects the freedom of individuals and groups to hold and manifest religious beliefs. The claim here does not fall within the scope of s. 2 (a) because neither the freedom to hold beliefs nor freedom to manifest those beliefs is infringed by approval herein.

Banks: Cheque Fraud
Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, 2017 SCC 51 (36918)

All payees of a fraudulent cheque scheme by an employee of Teva were either (1) known customers of Teva’s; or (2) companies whose names could reasonably have been mistaken for its actual customers, such that all payees existed. As a result, the defence in s. 20(5) the Bills of Exchange Act did not apply and the banks are liable for conversion.

Criminal Law/Immigration: “serious criminality”
Tran v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 50 (36784)

The phrase “punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years” refers to the maximum sentence an accused person could have received at the time of the commission of the offence. The maximum sentence that Mr. Tran here could have received at that time was seven years. Thus he was not convicted of an offence “punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years”.

Criminal Law: Joint Trials
R. v. Sciascia, 2017 SCC 57 (37155)

Joint trials are both permissible and desirable where the provincial charges and the summary conviction criminal charges share a sufficient factual nexus and it is in the interests of justice to try them together. At common law, courts have broad discretion to conduct joint trials in the interests of justice. Policy considerations are in favour of this pragmatic approach. And in the absence of an express statutory prohibition, or clear legislative intent to the contrary, there is no justification to oust this discretion.

Labour Law: Management Rights; s. 7 Liberty Interests
Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 55 (37014)

An adjudicator’s decision that a DoJ directive contravened the collective agreement is reasonable, and the order that the employer stop applying the directive reinstated. The directive however did not engage the lawyers’ liberty interests under s. 7, and so not engage their constitutional rights.

Professions: Non-lawyers
Barreau du Québec v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 56 (37034)

It was reasonable for the Administrative Tribunal of Québec to conclude that, under the Act respecting administrative justice, a person who is not an advocate may, in certain proceedings, do everything needed for the representation of the Minister of...