Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: canada supreme court Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 8 results (0.032 seconds)

Jan 23 2014 (FN)

Robert Hryniak Vs. Fred MauldIn and Others

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-23-2014

..... , the trial process denies ordinary people the opportunity to have adjudication. and while going to trial has long been seen as a last resort, other dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and settlement are more likely to produce fair and just results when adjudication remains a realistic alternative. [25] prompt judicial resolution of legal disputes allows individuals to get on with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2014 (FN)

Vivendi Canada Inc. Vs. Michel Dellâandeuro;andtrade;aniello and Othe ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-16-2014

lebel and wagner jj. i. overview [1] the class action, which was introduced into quebec law in 1979, is the procedure which enables one member to sue without a mandate on behalf of all the members? of a group: art. 999(d), code of civil procedure, r.s.q., c. c 25 (c.c.p.?). this procedural vehicle has several objectives, including facilitating access to justice, modifying harmful behaviour and conserving judicial resources: hollick v. toronto (city), 2001 scc 68 (canlii), 2001 scc 68, [2001] 3 s.c.r. 158, at para. 15; western canadian shopping centres inc. v. dutton, 2001 scc 46 (canlii), 2001 scc 46, [2001] 2 s.c.r. 534, at paras. 27 29. [2] in art. 1003 c.c.p., the quebec legislature has laid down the essential conditions that must be met for a court to authorize the bringing of a class action. one of these conditions is that there be one or more questions of law or fact that are identical, similar or related? for all the members of the group. it is this criterion that is at the heart of this appeal. more specifically, a court hearing an application for authorization must decide whether art. 1003(a) c.c.p. requires a common answer, for all the members of the group in question, to the common question raised by their claims. [3] the litigation in this case arises out of a unilateral amendment made by vivendi canada inc. to the health insurance plan (plan?) of which it is the sponsor for its retirees and their surviving spouses. mr. dellaniello, the respondent in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 2014 (FN)

Diane Knopf, Warden of Mission Institution and Another Vs. Gurkirpal S ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-27-2014

introduction [1] this case arises from a decision of correctional authorities to transfer a federal inmate from a medium security institution to a maximum security institution on an emergency and involuntary basis. in response to the transfer decision, the inmate filed an application for relief in the form of habeas corpus on the grounds that the decision taken was unreasonable and that it was procedurally unfair. [2] at issue in this case is the state of the law with respect to the writ of habeas corpus. in particular, this court must clarify the scope of a provincial superior courts review power on an application for habeas corpus made by a prison inmate. the first question before the court is whether on such an application a provincial superior court may rule on the reasonableness of an administrative decision to transfer an inmate to a higher security institution or whether the reasonableness of the decision must be dealt with by the federal court on an application for judicial review. the second question concerns the information that must be disclosed to ensure that a transfer decision is procedurally fair. [3] in my view, superior courts are entitled to review an inmate transfer decision for reasonableness on an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid. if a decision is unreasonable, it will be unlawful. support for this conclusion can be found in the nature of the writ, in past court decisions regarding the writ, and in the importance of swift access to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 2014 (FN)

In the Matter of a Reference by the Governor in Council Concerning Sec ...

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-21-2014

the chief justice and lebel, abella, cromwell, karakatsanis and wagner jj. i. introduction [1] the supreme court act provides that three of the nine judges of the supreme court of canada must be appointed from among the judges of the court of appeal or of the superior court of the province of quebec or from among the advocates of that province?: r.s.c. 1985, c. s-26, s. 6. this reference seeks our opinion on two aspects of the eligibility requirements for appointment to these three quebec seats. [2] the first is whether a person who was at any time an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the barreau du qu bec qualifies for appointment under s. 6 as being from among the advocates of that province?. if the answer to the first question is no, the second question arises. it is whether parliament can enact legislation to make such a person eligible for appointment to one of the three quebec seats on the court. the answer to these questions which on their face raise issues of statutory interpretation engage more fundamental issues about the composition of the court and its place in canadas legal and constitutional order. [3] these questions arise in the context of the appointment under s. 6 of the honourable marc nadon, a supernumerary judge of the federal court of appeal and formerly, but not at the time of this appointment, a member of the quebec bar of more than 10 years standing. justice nadon was not a judge of the court of appeal or the superior court of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2014 (FN)

Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. Vs. Robert Hryniak and Another

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-23-2014

karakatsanis j. [1] like its companion, hryniak v. mauldin, 2014 scc 7 (canlii), 2014 scc 7 (mauldin), this appeal concerns the interpretation and application of ontarios new summary judgment rules. in this action, the ontario court of appeal overturned the motion judges decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff and made various trial management orders under rule 20.05 of the rules of civil procedure, r.r.o. 1990, reg. 194. [2] in light of the principles articulated in the mauldin appeal and for the reasons that follow, i would dismiss the appeal. i. facts [3] bruno appliance and furniture, inc. is an american corporation, whose principal is albert bruno. in late 2001, bruno met with robert cranston, the principal of a panamanian company, frontline investments, inc. as a result of these meetings, bruno executed a number of investment documents in favour of frontline. [4] in february 2002, bruno met with cranston and gregory peebles, a corporate-commercial lawyer at the toronto offices of cassels brock and blackwell. no notes were kept of this meeting, and the recollection of the participants varies. while robert hryniak did not attend this meeting, tropos financial corp. (tropos), a company of which hryniak was the principal, received and paid a bill for peebles attendance. [5] in early march 2002, bruno appliance wired us$1 million to cassels brock, who assigned the funds to an account associated with tropos. bruno appliances funds were then bundled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 2014 (FN)

Antal Babos Vs. Her Majesty the Queen

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-21-2014

moldaver j. i. introduction [1] this appeal provides the court with an opportunity to revisit the law of abuse of process as it relates to state conduct that impinges on the integrity of the justice system but does not affect trial fairness sometimes referred to as the residual category? of cases for which a judicial stay of proceedings may be ordered. in particular, we are tasked with clarifying the approach to be followed when determining whether a stay of proceedings should be ordered where such conduct is uncovered. [2] as we shall see, the appellants, antal babos and sergio piccirilli, complain about three forms of state misconduct: (1) attempts by the original provincial crown attorney to intimidate them into foregoing their right to a trial by threatening them with additional charges should they choose to plead not guilty; (2) collusion on the part of two police officers to mislead the court about the seizure of a firearm from mr. baboss car; and (3) improper means used by a federal crown attorney in obtaining mr. piccirillis medical records from the detention centre where he was being detained pending trial. [3] notably, the appellants do not argue that they cannot receive a fair trial as a result of the alleged incidents of misconduct they accept that they can. they submit instead that this is one of the clearest of cases in which a stay of proceedings is necessary to preserve and protect the integrity of the justice system. anything short of that would amount .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2014 (FN)

Attorney General of Canada Vs. Christopher John Whaling and Others

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-20-2014

wagner j. i. introduction [1] in this appeal, the court revisits the definition of the term punishment? in the context of s. 11(h) of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. the criminal law distinguishes between the sentence imposed on an offender and the conditions of the sentence. changes to the conditions of a sentence, such as eligibility for parole, do not alter the sentence itself. this court must decide whether retrospective changes to the conditions of a sentence may in some circumstances constitute punishment? in violation of the s. 11(h) right not to be punished twice for the same offence. [2] this appeal results from parliaments conclusion that accelerated parole review, or apr, was not working. established by legislation enacted in november 1992, apr was a simplified process that allowed first-time non-violent offenders to be considered for parole on the basis of a single question: are there no reasonable grounds to believe that the offender, if released, is likely to commit a violent offence? (see the corrections and conditional release act, s.c. 1992, c. 20 (ccra?).) [3] the crown cites criticism of apr that dated back to its inception. even before the legislation establishing apr was enacted, the canadian criminal justice association had expressed concerns about the violent recidivism test, noting that [n]o system of predicting future behaviour can be safely based upon such a single factor.? it argued that apr would be available to some offenders .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2014 (FN)

Elizabeth Bernard Vs. Attorney General of Canada and Others

Court : Canada Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-07-2014

abella and cromwell jj. [1] the public service labour relations board concluded that an employer was required to provide home contact information about bargaining unit members to the union which represents them because this information is needed by the union in order to carry out its representational duties. at the same time, however, the union must ensure that the information is kept secure and is used only for representational purposes. the main issue in this appeal is whether that decision was reasonable. we conclude that it was. background [2] elizabeth bernard is the protagonist in a legal odyssey which has found its way through three administrative tribunal proceedings, two rounds of judicial review in the federal court of appeal and now an appeal to this court. she is a member of a bargaining unit in the federal public service, but does not belong to the union which has exclusive bargaining rights for her bargaining unit. in labour relations terms, this means that ms. bernard is a rand formula employee?; in other words, although she is not a union member, she is entitled to the benefits of the collective agreement and representation by the union and is required to pay union dues. the union is exclusive bargaining agent for all members of the bargaining unit and has representational duties such as in collective bargaining, the grievance process, workforce adjustments, prosecuting complaints, and conducting strike votes. those duties are owed to all bargaining unit .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //