2006 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 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. [1]

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

The Globe and Mail remarked that this year was the lowest number of judgments released in at least 25 years. [2] It was noted that this appears to be a part of a similar trend seen in the US Supreme Court and House of Lords.

<i>The Globe and Mail</i> Canadian newspaper

The Globe and Mail is a Canadian newspaper printed in five cities in western and central Canada. With a weekly readership of 2,018,923 in 2015, it is Canada's most widely read newspaper on weekdays and Saturdays, although it falls slightly behind the Toronto Star in overall weekly circulation because the Star publishes a Sunday edition while the Globe does not. The Globe and Mail is regarded by some as Canada's "newspaper of record". The newspaper is owned by The Woodbridge Company, based in Toronto.

Reasons

  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.

Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v Canadian Airlines International Ltd , [2006] 1 S.C.R. 3; 2006 SCC 1 October 19, 2005January 26, 2006
Isidore Garon ltée v Tremblay; Fillion et Frères (1976) inc v Syndicat national des employés de garage du Québec inc , [2006] 1 S.C.R. 27; 2006 SCC 2 February 16, 2005January 27, 2006X
Young v Bella , [2006] 1 S.C.R. 108; 2006 SCC 3 October 20, 2005January 27, 2006XX
ATCO Gas & Pipelines Ltd v Alberta (Energy & Utilities Board) , [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 2006 SCC 4 May 11, 2005February 9, 2006x
Canadian Pacific Railway Co v Vancouver (City) , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 5 November 9, 2005February 23, 2006
Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 6 April 12, 2005March 2, 2006211X
Mazzei v British Columbia (Director of Adult Forensic Psychiatric Services) , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 7 November 14, 2005March 16, 2006X
R v Pittiman , 1 S.C.R. ; 2006 SCC 9 February 10, 2006March 23, 2006
R v Lavigne , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 10 December 8, 2005March 30, 2006X
R v Chaisson , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 11 March 15, 2005March 30, 2006X
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
Lévis (City) v Tétreault; Lévis (City) v 2629-4470 Québec inc , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 12 October 21, 2005April 13, 2006X
HJ Heinz Co of Canada Ltd v Canada (AG) , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 13 November 7, 2005April 21, 2006
Tranchemontagne v Ontario (Director, Disability Support Program) , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 14 December 12, 2005April 21, 2006X
R v Rodgers , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 15 November 15, 2005April 27, 2006x
R v Graveline , 1 S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 16 March 14, 2006April 27, 2006X
R v Gagnon , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 17 March 16, 2006May 4, 2006XX
Childs v Desormeaux , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 18 January 18, 2006May 5, 2006
Bisaillon v Concordia University , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 19 December 14, 2005May 18, 2006X
Placer Dome Canada Ltd v Ontario (Minister of Finance) , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 20 November 17, 2005May 25, 2006X
Jesuit Fathers of Upper Canada v Guardian Insurance Co of Canada , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 21 January 10, 2006June 1, 2006
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
Mattel, Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 22 October 18, 2005June 2, 2006
Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v Boutiques Cliquot Ltée , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 23 October 18, 2005June 2, 2006
Canada 3000 Inc, Re; Inter‑Canadian (1991) Inc (Trustee of) , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 24 January 16, 17, 2006June 9, 2006x
Leskun v Leskun , _ S.C.R. _; 2006 SCC 25 February 15, 2006June 21, 2006
R v BWP; R v BVN , 2006 SCC 27 November 10, 2005June 22, 2006
Buschau v Rogers Communications Inc , 2006 SCC 28 November 15, 2005June 22, 2006X
Fidler v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada , 2006 SCC 30 December 6, 2005June 29, 2006x
Goodis v Ontario (Ministry of Correctional Services) , 2006 SCC 31 April 18, 2006July 7, 2006X
R v Boulanger , 2006 SCC 32 April 18, 2006July 13, 2006X
United States of America v Ferras; United States of America v Latty , 2006 SCC 33 October 17, 2005July 21, 2006
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
United Mexican States v Ortega; United States of America v Fiessel , 2006 SCC 34 March 23, 2006July 21, 2006X
GMAC Commercial Credit Corporation - Canada v TCT Logistics Inc , 2006 SCC 35 November 16, 2005July 27, 2006x
Celanese Canada Inc v Murray Demolition Corp , 2006 SCC 36 December 12, 2005July 27, 2006X
DBS v SRG; LJW v TAR; Henry v Henry; Hiemstra v Hiemstra , 2006 SCC 37 February 13, 2006July 31, 2006x
Blank v Canada (Minister of Justice) , 2006 SCC 39 December 13, 2005September 8, 2006
R v Kong , 2006 SCC 40 June 22, 2006September 8, 2006X/R
Isen v Simms , 2006 SCC 41 June 21, 2006October 5, 2006X
R v Hazout , 2006 SCC 42 June 22, 2006October 5, 2006
Robertson v Thomson Corp , 2006 SCC 43 Dec. 6, 2005/Apr. 18, 2006October 12, 2006xx
R v Shoker , 2006 SCC 44 February 14, 2006October 13, 2006
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
Walker v Ritchie , 2006 SCC 45 May 10, 2006October 13, 2006X
Imperial Oil Ltd v Canada; Inco Ltd v Canada , 2006 SCC 46 February 7, 2006October 20, 2006X
R v Krieger , 2006 SCC 47 January 12, 2006October 26, 2006X
Pharmascience Inc v Binet , 2006 SCC 48 May 9, 2006October 26, 2006X
AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Canada (Minister of Health) , 2006 SCC 49 May 11, 2006November 3, 2006X
Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec v Regroupement pour la commercialisation des produits de l'érable inc , 2006 SCC 50 June 19, 2006November 9, 2006
Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc , 2006 SCC 52 December 5, 2005November 17, 2006
R v Déry , 2006 SCC 53 February 16, 2006November 23, 2006X
R v Sappier; R v Gray , 2006 SCC 54 May 17, 2006December 7, 2006
R v Angelillo , 2006 SCC 55 December 8, 2005December 8, 2006
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
R v Larche , 2006 SCC 56 November 8, 2005December 8, 2006
R v Khelawon , 2006 SCC 57 December 16, 2005December 14, 2006
McDiarmid Lumber Ltd v God's Lake First Nation , 2006 SCC 58 April 20, 2006December 15, 2006
R v Morris , 2006 SCC 59 October 14, 2005December 21, 2006XX

Justices of the Supreme Court

JusticeReasons writtenVotes cast% Majority
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
8002Total=10
32114Total=38
41 of 48
Puisne Justice Michel Bastarache
7202Total=11
34102Total=37
44 of 48
Puisne Justice Ian Binnie
7103Total=11
33112Total=37
42 of 48
Puisne Justice Louis LeBel
8302Total=13
32002Total=34
43 of 47
Pusine Justice Marie Deschamps
7102Total=10
33002Total=35
41 of 45
Puisne Justice Morris Fish
8103Total=12
39205Total=46
50 of 58
Pusine Justice Rosalie Abella
5212Total=10
37001Total=38
44 of 48
Pusine Justice Louise Charron
7000Total=07
35312Total=41
45 of 48
Pusine Justice Marshall Rothstein (began March 1, 2006)
3000Total=03
7000Total=07
10 of 10 (100%)
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.

Notes

  1. Motions released in 2006: R. v. Hotte, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 379, 2006 SCC 8; Ronald David Baier et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (Motion), 2006 SCC 38
  2. Kirk Makin, "Dramatic drop in Supreme Court rulings fuels questions" Globe and Mail (December 29, 2006)

Related Research Articles

Beverley McLachlin 17th Chief Justice of Canada

Beverley Marian McLachlin, CStJ is a Canadian jurist and author who served as the 17th Chief Justice of Canada from 2000 to 2017, the first woman to hold that position and the longest serving Chief Justice in Canadian history. In her role as Chief Justice, she also simultaneously served as a Deputy of the Governor General of Canada.

Ian Binnie Canadian judge

William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from 1998 to 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few to have never sat as a judge prior to his appointment. He was described by the Toronto Star as "one of the strongest hands on the court."

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 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 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.

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 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.

Michael Moldaver is a Canadian judge. He has been a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada since his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Hryniak v Mauldin</i>

Hryniak v Mauldin2014 SCC 7 is a landmark case of the Supreme Court of Canada that supports recent reforms to Canadian civil procedure in the area of granting summary judgment in civil cases.

<i>R v Nur</i>

R v Nur2015 SCC 15 is a Canadian constitutional law case, concerning the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences.

The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2019. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason.