Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

• Author: Administrator
• Date: June 23, 2019

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 (May 11 – June 20, 2019 inclusive).

Oral Judgments

Corporate Law: Fraud; Knowing Participation/Assistance
Christine DeJong Medicine Professional Corp. v. DBDC Spadina Ltd., 2018 ONCA 60; 2019 SCC 30 (38051)

Brown J.: “… the respondents’ claim for knowing assistance must fail … In view of the statement of the majority at the Court of Appeal that this Court’s decision in Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 855, invited a “flexible” application of the criteria stated in Canadian Dredge & Dock Co. v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 662 for attributing individual wrongdoing to a corporation, we respectfully add this. What the Court directed in Livent, at para. 104, was that even where those criteria are satisfied, “courts retain the discretion to refrain from applying [corporate attribution] where, in the circumstances of the case, it would not be in the public interest to do so” (emphasis added). In other words, while the presence of public interest concerns may heighten the burden on the party seeking to have the actions of a directing mind attributed to a corporation, Canadian Dredge states minimal criteria that must always be met. The appeal is allowed, with costs throughout.”

Criminal Law: Firearms; Possession for the Purposes; Evidence Exclusion
R. v. Omar, 2018 ONCA 975; 2019 SCC 32 (38461)

Brown J.: “A majority of this Court would allow the appeal, substantially for the reasons of Brown J.A. at the Court of Appeal. The majority adds this. It may be that consideration should be given to the availability, under s. 24(1) … remedies other than exclusion of evidence when dealing with s. 24(2), but the majority would leave this question for another day. Justices Karakatsanis, Brown and Martin dissent, substantially for the reasons of Sharpe J.A. at the Court of Appeal. The dissenters add this. It may be that consideration should be given to whether the police should caution persons that they stop and question that such persons need not remain or answer questions, but the dissenters would leave this for another day. The appeal is allowed and the convictions are restored.”

Appeals

Authorization; Conditions to Institute Class Action
L’Oratoire Saint Joseph du Mont Royal v. J.J., 2019 SCC 35 (37855)

The judgment in which the Superior Court denied authorization to institute...