This article may overuse or misuse color, making it hard to understand for color-blind users. Please remove or fix instances of distracting or hard-to-read colors or remove colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text, or color links for purely aesthetic reasons. See the guides to editing for accessibility at contrast and colors.(August 2023)
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 1998. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
Ref. re Remuneration of Judges of Prov. Court of PEI; Ref. re Independence & Impartiality of Judges of Prov. Court of PEI; R. v. Campbell; R. v. Ekmecic; R. v. Wickman; Manitoba Prov. Judges Assn. v. Manitoba (Min. of Justice), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 3
Did not participate in the final disposition of the judgment
Not a member of the Court at the time of hearing or delivering
Decisions that do not note a Justice delivering the Court's reason are per coram.
Multiple concurrences and dissents within a case are numbered, with joining votes numbered accordingly. Justices occasionally join multiple reasons in a single case; each vote is subdivided accordingly.
Multiple unnumbered reasons are jointly written or delivered.
Decisions that are given orally from the bench are denoted by a "V"; per coram decisions delivered orally from the bench only note a "V" on the most senior justice on the panel.
An asterisk ( * ) in the Court's opinion denotes that it was only a majority in part or a plurality.
Notes
↑ Notices released in 1998:M & D Farm Ltd v Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1074, Ref. re Remuneration of Judges of Prov. Court of PEI; Ref. re Independence & Impartiality of Judges of Prov. Court of PEI; R. v. Campbell; R. v. Ekmecic; R. v. Wickman; Manitoba Prov. Judges Assn. v. Manitoba (Min. of Justice), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 443
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises 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 appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.
In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.
The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2005. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2006. A total of 59 judgments were published. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include reasons on motions.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2004. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
The procedures of the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing cases is established in the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court Act, and by tradition.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2003. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
Reference Re Remuneration of Judges [1998] 1 S.C.R. 3 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada addressing questions regarding the 1997 Provincial Judges Reference, also known as Re Remuneration of Judges. Since the Supreme Court, in 1997, found independent committees were needed to help determine judicial salaries, the Court now had to address challenges regarding the creation of such committees.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2002. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2001. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2000. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 1999. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include decisions on motions.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2007. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include reasons on motions.
The table below lists the reasons delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 1997. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include reasons on motions.
The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2008. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include reasons on motions.
The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2009. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include reasons on motions.
The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2010. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include reasons on motions.
The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2014. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason. This list, however, does not include reasons on motions.
Richard Jamieson Scott, also known as Dick Scott, is a Canadian jurist who served as Chief Justice of Manitoba. In that capacity, he presided over the Manitoba Court of Appeal from 1990 to 2013. Among his most notable decisions are those in the cases Rebenchuk v Rebenchuk (2007), Manitoba Métis Federation Inc v Canada et al. (2010), O’Brien v Tyrone Enterprises Ltd (2012), and, while he was on the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, R v Lavallee.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
