2003 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada

Last updated

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.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Contents

Of the 75 judgments released in 2003, 14 were oral judgments, 49 were unanimous, there was no pluralities, and no motions.

Reasons

Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
R v Wise , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 3; 2003 SCC 1 January 21, 2003January 21, 2003V
R v Pelletier , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 4; 2003 SCC 2 January 21, 2003January 21, 2003
Siemens v Manitoba (AG) , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6; 2003 SCC 3 October 31, 2002January 30, 2003
R v RR , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 37; 2003 SCC 4 February 11, 2003February 11, 2003V
R v Harriott , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 39; 2003 SCC 5 February 11, 2003February 11, 2003V
R v Zinck , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 41; 2003 SCC 6 October 7, 2002February 20, 2003
R v Feeley , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 64; 2003 SCC 7 February 20, 2003February 20, 2003V
Canada (Information Commissioner) v Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 66; 2003 SCC 8 October 29, 2002March 6, 2003
Markevich v Canada , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94; 2003 SCC 9 December 4, 2002March 6, 2001
Reference Re Earth Future Lottery , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 123; 2003 SCC 10 March 11, 2003March 11, 2003V
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
R v MS , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 125; 2003 SCC 11 [ permanent dead link ]March 13, 2003March 13, 2003V
R v Willis , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 127; 2003 SCC 12 March 14, 2003March 14, 2003V
Allen v Alberta , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 128; 2003 SCC 13 December 10, 2002March 20, 2003
Goudie v Ottawa (City of) , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141; 2003 SCC 14 December 10, 2002March 20, 2003
R v Knight; R v Hay , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 156; 2003 SCC 15 March 20, 2003March 20, 2003V
Martin v American International Assurance Life Co , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 158; 2003 SCC 16 October 28, 2002March 21, 2003
Desputeaux v Éditions Chouette (1987) inc , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 178; 2003 SCC 17 November 6, 2002March 21, 2003
R v Allen , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 223; 2003 SCC 18 March 21, 2003March 21, 2003V
Dr Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 2003 SCC 19 October 2, 2002April 3, 2003
Law Society of New Brunswick v Ryan , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 2003 SCC 20 October 1, 2002April 3, 2003
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
R v PA , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 275; 2003 SCC 21 April 14, 2003April 14, 2003V
R v Larue , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 277; 2003 SCC 22 April 14, 2003April 14, 2003V
R v Arradi , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 280; 2003 SCC 23 December 3, 2002April 17, 2003
Miglin v Miglin , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 2003 SCC 24 October 29, 2002April 17, 2003
KP Pacific Holdings Ltd v Guardian Insurance Co of Canada , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 433; 2003 SCC 25 February 18, 2003May 1, 2003
Churchland v Gore Mutual Insurance Co , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 445; 2003 SCC 26 February 18, 2003May 1, 2003
ZI Pompey Industrie v ECU-Line NV , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 450; 2003 SCC 27 October 2, 2002May 1, 2003
Barrie Public Utilities v Canadian Cable Television Assn , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 2003 SCC 28 February 19, 2003May 16, 2003
Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour) , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 2003 SCC 29 October 8, 2002May 16, 2003
R v Buhay , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 2003 SCC 30 November 1, 2002June 5, 2003
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
Caisse populaire Desjardins de Val-Brillant v Blouin , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 666; 2003 SCC 31 November 6, 2002June 5, 2003
Starson v Swayze , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722; 2003 SCC 32 January 15, 2003June 6, 2003
R v Owen , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779; 2003 SCC 33 January 15, 2003June 6, 2003
Trociuk v British Columbia (AG) , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 835; 2003 SCC 34 December 4, 2002June 6, 2003
Ell v Alberta , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 857; 2003 SCC 35 February 12, 2003June 26, 2003
Bell Canada v Canadian Telephone Employees Association , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884; 2003 SCC 36 January 23, 2003June 26, 2003
Figueroa v Canada (AG) , [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912; 2003 SCC 37 November 5, 2002June 27, 2003
R v Asante-Mensah , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 3; 2003 SCC 38 November 7, 2002July 11, 2003
Authorson v Canada (AG) , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 40; 2003 SCC 39 April 10, 2003July 17, 2003
Unifund Assurance Co v Insurance Corp of British Columbia , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63; 2003 SCC 40 December 12, 2002July 17, 2003
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
R v Williams , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 134; 2003 SCC 41 December 3, 2002September 18, 2003
Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v Ontario Public Sector Employees Union, Local 324 , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 157; 2003 SCC 42 January 24, 2003September 18, 2003
R v Powley , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 207; 2003 SCC 43 March 17, 2003September 19, 2003
R v Blais , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 236; 2003 SCC 44 March 18, 2003September 19, 2003
Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 2003 SCC 45 June 23, 2003September 26, 2003
R v Johnson , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357; 2003 SCC 46 January 16, 2003September 26, 2003
R v Edgar , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 388; 2003 SCC 47 January 16, 2003September 26, 2003
R v Smith, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 392; 2003 SCC 48 January 16, 2003September 26, 2003
R v Mitchell , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 396; 2003 SCC 49 January 16, 2003September 26, 2003
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
R v Kelly , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 400; 2003 SCC 50 January 16, 2003September 26, 2003
KLB v British Columbia , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 403; 2003 SCC 51 December 5, 6, 2002October 2, 2003
EDG v Hammer , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 459; 2003 SCC 52 December 5, 6, 2002October 2, 2003
MB v British Columbia , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 477; 2003 SCC 53 December 5, 6, 2002October 2, 2003
Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Laseur, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 2003 SCC 54 December 9, 2002October 3, 2003
Paul v British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission) , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 2003 SCC 55 June 11, 2003October 3, 2003
R v Bédard , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 621; 2003 SCC 56 October 7, 2003October 7, 2003V
R v Phillips , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 623; 2003 SCC 57 October 17, 2003October 17, 2003V
Imperial Oil Ltd v Quebec (Minister of the Environment) , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 624; 2003 SCC 58 February 14, 2003October 30, 2003
Gurniak v Nordquist , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 652; 2003 SCC 59 [ permanent dead link ]March 12, 2003October 30, 2003
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
R v SAB , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 678; 2003 SCC 60 March 19, 2003October 31, 2003
Deloitte & Touche LLP v Ontario (Securities Commission) , [2003] 2 S.C.R. 713; 2003 SCC 61 June 10, 2003October 31, 2003
Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 3; 2003 SCC 62 October 4, 2002November 6, 2003
Toronto (City of) v Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 2003 SCC 63 February 13, 2003November 6, 2003
Ontario v Ontario Public Sector Employees Union , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 149; 2003 SCC 64 February 13, 2003November 6, 2003
Vann Niagara Ltd v Oakville (Town of) , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 158; 2003 SCC 65 [ permanent dead link ]November 23, 2003January 20, 2004V
National Trust Co v H & R Block Canada Inc , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 160; 2003 SCC 66 June 3, 2003November 14, 2003
Maranda v Richer , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 193; 2003 SCC 67 May 12, 2003November 14, 2003
Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v Maksteel Québec Inc , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 228; 2003 SCC 68 January 20, 2003November 14, 2003
Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263; 2003 SCC 69 February 17, 2003December 5, 2003
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinGothierIacobucciMajorBastaracheBinnieArbourLeBelDeschampsFish
R v Taillefer; R v Duguay , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 307; 2003 SCC 70 January 22, 2003December 12, 2003
British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371; 2003 SCC 71 June 9, 2003December 12, 2003
Beals v Saldanha , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 416; 2003 SCC 72 February 20, 2003December 18, 2003
R v Wu , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 530; 2003 SCC 73 June 4, 2003December 18, 2003
R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 2003 SCC 74 May 6, 2003December 23, 2003123
R v Clay , [2003] 3 S.C.R. 735; 2003 SCC 75 May 6, 2003December 23, 2003123

Justices of the Supreme Court

JusticeReasons writtenVotes cast% Majority
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
14

0

0

1

Total=15
48

1

0

1

Total=50
63 of 65 (96.92%)
Puisne Justice Charles Gonthier (retired August 5, 2003)
10

1

0

0

Total=11
47

1

1

1

Total=50
59 of 61 (96.72%)
Puisne Justice Frank Iacobucci
16

0

0

1

Total=17
48

0

0

2

Total=50
47 of 50 (94%)
Puisne Justice John C. Major
7

0

0

3

Total=10
54

0

0

3

Total=57
61 of 67 (91.04%)
Puisne Justice Michel Bastarache
6

1

0

3

Total=10
56

0

0

1

Total=57
63 of 67 (94.03%)
Puisne Justice Ian Binnie
9

0

0

1

Total=10
58

0

0

2

Total=60
67 of 70 (95.71%)
Puisne Justice Louise Arbour
16

2

3

1

Total=22
46

0

0

0

Total=46
64 of 68 (94.12%)
Puisne Justice Louis LeBel
8

3

2

3

Total=16
45

0

0

4

Total=49
56 of 65 (86.15%)
Pusine Justice Marie Deschamps
3

1

3

4

Total=11
50

3

0

2

Total=55
57 of 66 (86.36%)
Puisne Justice Morris Fish (appointed August 5, 2003)
0

0

0

0

Total=00
3

0

0

0

Total=03
3 of 3 (100%)
This

Notes on statistics:

  • A justice is only included in the majority if they have joined or concurred in the Court's judgment in full. Percentages are based only on the cases in which a justice participated, and are rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.
  Delivered the Court's reason
  Joined the Court's reason
  Filed a concurrence
  Joined a concurrence
  Filed a dissent
  Joined a dissent
  Filed a concurrence/dissent
  Joined a concurrence/dissent
  Did not participate in 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.

Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have the option of releasing reasons for a unanimous decision anonymously by simply attributing the judgment to "The Court". The practice began around 1979 by Chief Justice Laskin, borrowing from the US Supreme Court practice of anonymizing certain unanimous decisions. Unlike in the US, which uses it primarily for uncontroversial cases, in Canada, it is used almost always for important and controversial cases.

In law, a concurring opinion is in certain legal systems a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different reasons as the basis for his or her decision. When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions, and the concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is referred to as the plurality opinion.

A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case in certain legal systems written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment. When not necessarily referring to a legal decision, this can also be referred to as a minority report.

Related Research Articles

Delaware Supreme Court the highest court in the U.S. state of Delaware

The Supreme Court of Delaware is the sole appellate court in the United States' state of Delaware. Because Delaware is a popular haven for corporations, the Court has developed a worldwide reputation as a respected source of corporate law decisions, particularly in the area of mergers and acquisitions.

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.

Procedures of the Supreme Court of Canada

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 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 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.

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 2011. 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 2012. 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 2013. 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.

The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2015. 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.