Supreme Court of Canada rules on criminal and family law cases in December
This month and last month, the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and Federal Court released decisions relating to divorce, drug and robbery charges, broadcasting regulations, income tax, class proceedings, and civil liability.
On Jan. 2, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its decision in Skechers USA Canada, Inc. v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2025 FCA 1. The appellant in this case applied for judicial review of four decisions of the Canada Border Service Agency.
The Federal Court upheld an associate judge’s decision striking the appellant’s notice of application. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The appeal court saw no reviewable errors and substantially agreed with the reasons provided in the prior decisions.
On Dec. 23, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its decision in Amazon.com.ca ULC v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FCA 217. Three appellants filed judicial review applications challenging a broadcasting regulatory policy issued by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). They moved to stay related orders released by the CRTC.
The Federal Court of Appeal stayed the first and second paragraphs of the order appended to the policy and other orders issued by the CRTC to the appellants until the determination of their judicial review applications and appeals challenging the policy.
On Dec. 20, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal issued its decision in Sodecia Canada Investments Inc. v. Canada, 2024 FCA 216. The appellant in this tax case appealed a notice of assessment. The Minister of National Revenue moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the appellant failed to file a notice of objection within the time limit required by the Income Tax Act, 1985.
The Tax Court of Canada granted this motion, which prompted the appellant to appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal upon seeing no palpable and overriding errors in the tax judge’s assessment of the evidence.
On Dec. 20, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du CISSS A, 2024 SCC 43. Here, a young person and her parents applied with the Court of Quebec’s Youth Division for a declaration of encroachment upon rights under s. 91(4) of Quebec’s Youth Protection Act.
The Quebec court found four situations encroaching upon the young person’s rights and ordered corrective measures. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It held that the tribunal erred in the first two orders by failing to limit the measures’ scope, exceeded its powers in the third order, and failed to sufficiently anchor the measure in the fourth order in the context and evidence.
On Dec. 9, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in Dunmore v. Mehralian, 2024 CanLII 121992 (SCC). This case arose from the breakdown of the parties’ marriage. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a divorce recognition order, from which the ex-wife appealed, and a parenting jurisdiction order, from which the ex-husband appealed.
On Dec. 6, 2023, in Mehralian v. Dunmore, 2023 ONCA 806, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. The ex-husband elevated the case to Canada’s highest court. A majority of the Supreme Court decided to dismiss his appeal.
On Dec. 6, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in R. v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42. In this case, police officers arrested a drug dealer and used his cellphone to continue a text message conversation with the appellant, who then faced charges for trafficking and possession offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, 1996.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s conviction and sentence appeals. The Supreme Court also ruled against the appellant. It accepted that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text message conversation but held that exigent circumstances justified the officers’ warrantless search of the conversation.
On Dec. 5, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its judgment in R. v. Stevenson, 2024 SCC 41. The appellant in this case received convictions for a robbery recorded on a security camera video and for masking his face with the intent to commit an indictable offence. His former gang associate identified him as a participant in the robbery.
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The Supreme Court also ruled against the appellant. It held that the trial judge’s reasons sufficiently showed her recognition of the dangers of relying on the gang associate’s evidence.
On Jan. 3, the Federal Court issued its decision in 2K4 Inc. O/A Indican Pictures v. Indiecan Entertainment Inc., 2025 FC 20. Here, the applicant accused the respondent of passing off its film distribution services as the applicant’s and of using a name and mark likely to cause confusion under s. 7(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1985.
The court dismissed the application. It decided that the applicant failed to establish a valid Canadian trademark as of 2011 and failed to show use of the mark in association with film distribution services before 2011.
On Jan. 2, the Federal Court issued its decision in Payne v His Majesty the King, 2025 FC 5. The underlying proposed class action challenged the Treasury Board of Canada’s Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination for the Core Public Administration Including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, issued in October 2021.
The defendant moved to strike the claim under r. 221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. The court partly granted the motion, struck the claim’s portion pertaining to the alleged tort of misfeasance in public office, and decided not to strike the portion relating to the plaintiffs’ assertion of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On Dec. 27, 2024, the Federal Court issued its decision in Percival v. Canada, 2024 FC 2098. The underlying class proceeding concerned the Indian Boarding Home Program. The applicants moved for the approval of class counsel fees and the award of honoraria.
The court deemed the amount of $32.5 million fair and reasonable as class counsel fees and approved honoraria in the amount of $10,000 for the representative plaintiffs and the Quebec subclass representative, to be paid from the class counsel fees.
On Dec. 23, 2024, the Federal Court issued its decision in Boulachanis v. Canada, 2024 FC 1845. The plaintiff in this case filed the underlying civil liability claim against the defendant in the amount of $15 million.
The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s statement of claim based on delay under r. 167 of the Federal Courts Rules. The court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim upon finding inordinate and inexcusable delay.
