|
Reasons Of The Supreme Court Of Canada By Justice Rothstein
This is a list of all the reasons written by Marshall Rothstein during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. 2006 2007 2008 * British Columbia v Zastowny, 0081 SCR 27; 2008 SCC 4 (Maj) * R v Beatty, 0081 S.C.R. 49; 2008 SCC 5 (Maj) * 620 Connaught Ltd v Canada (AG), 0081 SCR 131; 2008 SCC 7 (Maj) * Design Services Ltd v Canada, 0081 SCR 737, 2008 SCC 22 (Maj) * R v DB, 0082 SCR 3, 2008 SCC 25 * Canada v McLarty, 0082 SCR 79, 2008 SCC 26 * Redeemer Foundation v Canada (National Revenue), 0082 SCR 643, 2008 SCC 46 * R v LTH, 0082 SCR 739, 2008 SCC 49 * FH v McDougall, 0083 SCR 41, 2008 SCC 53 * Apotex Inc v Sanofi‑Synthelabo Canada Inc, 0083 SCR 265, 2008 SCC 61 (Maj) * Canadian National Railway Co v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co of Canada, 0083 SCR 453, 2008 SCC 66 (Dis) 2009 * Lipson v Canada, 2009 SCC 1, 0091 SCR 3 (Dis) * Shafron v KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc, 2009 SCC 6, 0091 SCR 157 (Maj) * Ermineskin Indian Band ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Marshall Rothstein
Marshall Rothstein (born December 25, 1940) is a former Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Early life Born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, to Jewish parents who immigrated from Eastern Europe, he received a Bachelor of Commerce in 1962 and an LL.B. in 1966 from the University of Manitoba. Marshall was the only child. His mother, a school teacher, was Russian and his father, a Pole, a bookkeeper and merchant. They met in Canada and settled in Winnipeg, where Marshall was born during the war years. Marshall's father wanted him to be an actuary, and so Marshall pursued a bachelor's degree in commerce at the University of Manitoba, but in his final year he took a course on commercial law and became fascinated by the law and decided on the law as a career path instead. Rothstein worked in food service on a passenger train while between semesters at university. The experience of being the lowest-ranked employee while interacting with a variety of people from different backgrounds ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Supreme Court Of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal Appeal, appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions (common law and Civil law (legal system), civil law) and bilingual, hearing cases in both Official bilingualism in Canada, official languages of Canada (English language, English and French language, French). The effects of any judicial decision on the common law, on the interpretation of statutes, or on any other application of law, can, in effect, be nullified by legislation, unless the particular decision of the court in question involves applicatio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Caisse Populaire Desjardins De L'Est De Drummond V Canada
''Caisse populaire Desjardins de l'Est de Drummond v Canada'' is a Canadian income tax law case of the Supreme Court of Canada that has wide-ranging application to other areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction when dealing with cash collateral arrangements and security interests. Background In September 2000, Les Entreprises Camvrac Inc. was granted a line of credit of $277,000 by the Caisse populaire du Bon Conseil in Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil, Quebec, and in return it made a term deposit of $200,000 which was neither negotiable nor transferable during the line's term. In the event of default, it was agreed that there would be compensation between the credit agreement and the term deposit. In November 2000, Camvrac defaulted on the credit agreement and later made an assignment in bankruptcy. As it had failed to remit source deductions with respect to income taxes and employment insurance premiums, which are subject to a deemed trust under the ''Income Tax Act'' (Canad ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Copthorne Holdings Ltd V Canada
''Copthorne Holdings Ltd v Canada'', 2011 SCC 63, 0113 SCR 721, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the applicability of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule ("GAAR") in the interpretation of the '' Income Tax Act (Canada)''. ("ITA") The facts Copthorne Holdings was part of a group of Canadian and non-resident companies controlled by Li Ka-Shing and his son Victor Li. It had purchased the Harbour Castle Hilton hotel in Toronto in 1981, and sold it for a substantial capital gain in 1989. The proceeds of the sale had been invested by Copthorne in Copthorne Overseas Investment Ltd. ("COIL"), a wholly owned Barbados company that carried on an active bond-trading business in Singapore. Another company in the Li Group, VHHC Holdings, held directly (and indirectly through its subsidiary VHSUB Holdings) shares in Husky Energy Inc. By 1991, there was a substantial unrealized capital loss on that investment. In 1992, VHHC Holdings was sold to Copthorne, and VHHC Holdings subseque ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission V Whatcott
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott is a Canadian constitutional law case concerning the constitutionality of the hate speech provision in Saskatchewan's human rights legislation. Background Four complainants brought an application to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission after receiving flyers entitled "Keep Homosexuality out of Saskatoon's Public Schools!" and "Sodomites in our Public Schools" from Christian anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott. The complainants alleged a violation of section 14 of ''The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code'' (''SHRC''), which prohibits "publication or display of any representation that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground". Sexual orientation was one such prohibited ground. A Saskatchewan human rights tribunal heard the case, holding that the contents of each flyer objectively contravened section 14 of the ' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd V Canada
''Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada'' is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Canadian income tax law, as well as the purposive interpretation of statutes. Background Daishowa‑Marubeni International Ltd., a company owned by Daishowa Paper Manufacturing and Marubeni Corporation, operated pulp mills in Peace River, Alberta and in Quesnel, British Columbia. Through separate subsidiaries in High Level, Alberta ("High Level") and Red Earth Creek, Alberta ("Brewster"), it carried on the business of harvesting logs and manufacturing finished timber. At the beginning of 1999, the subsidiaries were amalgamated into the parent company. High Level was sold later in 1999 to Tolko Industries Ltd., and Brewster in 2000 to Seehta Forest Products. Both transactions included the sale of timber licences, each of which is considered to be a "timber resource property" under the ''Income Tax Act'' (Canada). Under Alberta law, consent was gra ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian National Railway Co V Canada (AG)
is a significant case from the Supreme Court of Canada in the area of Canadian administrative law, focusing on whether the standard of review framework set out in ''Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick'' applies to decisions of the Governor in Council of Canada (i.e., the Cabinet of Canada), and whether it has authority to vary or rescind an administrative tribunal decision on questions of law or jurisdiction. Background Appeals to the Governor in Council Under various statutes passed by the Parliament of Canada since 1888, the Governor in Council has been authorized to vary or rescind decisions taken by certain administrative tribunals of the Government of Canada. Current authority to do so is conferred under the following Acts: Similar authority has been granted by provincial statutes to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council (i.e., the provincial cabinet). Such power has been described as "legislative in nature and ... no hearing is required in such cases." The procedure is seen to b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canadian Artists' Representation V National Gallery Of Canada
is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada on the nature of bargaining in good faith. It also has an effect on the nature of negotiations for royalties that may be due to artists under Canada's '' Copyright Act''. Background Exhibition rights under Canadian copyright law In 1988, the ''Copyright Act'' was amended to provide for an exhibition right "to present at a public exhibition, for a purpose other than sale or hire, an artistic work created after June 7, 1988, other than a map, chart or plan." Such fees were to be negotiated directly with individual copyright holders or their authorized agents. ''Status of the Artist Act'' In 1992, the Parliament of Canada passed the ''Status of the Artist Act'' ("''SAA''"), which provided for Canadian artists to be represented by recognized professional associations in negotiating terms of compensation on their behalf with federal "producers" who commission artists' services. Accordingly, Canadian Artists' Representation ("CARFAC" ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bank Of Montreal V Marcotte
is a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Together with and (collectively known as the "''Marcotte trilogy''"), it represents a further development in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy, together with significant clarifications on the law concerning class actions in the Province of Quebec, which is similar to that in operation in the common law provinces. Background In Canada, holders of credit cards are allowed to use them to make purchases in foreign currency, and the conversion of the purchase price into Canadian dollars follows a similar pattern among all card issuers: #Conversion from the foreign currency through the interbank rate. #Application of a conversion charge by the issuer, which is disclosed by only some issuers to the cardholder. #Inserting the total amount of the transactions onto the cardholder's monthly statement. In April 2003, Réal Marcotte applied to the Superior Court of Quebec f ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mounted Police Association Of Ontario V Canada
''Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada'' 0151 SCR 3 is a leading Canadian labour law case concerning freedom of association under section 2(d) of the '' Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms''. The Court concluded that the exclusion of Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers from unionization and collective bargaining was unconstitutional, overruling '' Delisle v Canada (Deputy Attorney General).'' Along with ''Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan'' and ''Meredith v Canada (Attorney General)'', the decision in ''MPAO'' represented a significant evolution in the interpretation of section 2(d), clarifying the legal standard applicable under that provision. Background ''MPAO'' was decided against the backdrop of the Court's earlier ruling in ''Delisle''. In that decision, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of laws excluding RCMP officers from collective bargaining. In the years after ''Delisle'', the Court expanded the scope of section 2(d): in '' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Saskatchewan Federation Of Labour V Saskatchewan
''Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan'' 0151 SCR 245is a Canadian labour law case on the right to strike. Facts The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and a group of other unions claimed that two new provincial statutes violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by suppressing the freedom to take collective action and collective bargaining. The government of Saskatchewan introduced Public Service Essential Services Act 2008 which would have unilaterally designated public sector workers' services as "essential" and therefore prohibited strike action. The new Trade Union Amendment Act 2008 increased the level of employee support to unionize, so making it more difficult to organize a union. Judgment The Canadian Supreme Court held that the Public Service Essential Services Act 2008 was an unwarranted interference with the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining, as previously elaborated in ''Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
