2007 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 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. [1]

Contents

Reasons

Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
Kingstreet Investments Ltd v Province of New Brunswick (Department of Finance) , 2007 SCC 1 June 20, 2006January 11, 2007x
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue) , 2007 SCC 2 April 19, 2006January 19, 2007
Double N Earthmovers Ltd v Edmonton (City) , 2007 SCC 3 June 16, 2006January 25, 2007
McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v Syndicat des employés de l'Hôpital général de Montréal , 2007 SCC 4 April 12, 2006January 26, 2007
R v Beaudry , 2007 SCC 5 May 12, 2006January 31, 2007
R v Trochym , 2007 SCC 6 May 9, 2006February 1, 2007
Resurfice Corp v Hanke , 2007 SCC 7 December 12, 2006February 8, 2007
Dickie v Dickie , 2007 SCC 8 January 17, 2007February 9, 2007
Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2007 SCC 9 June 13, 2006February 23, 2007
Canada (AG) v Hislop , 2007 SCC 10 May 16, 2006March 1, 2007
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
R v Spencer , 2007 SCC 11 October 17, 2006March 8, 2007
R v Bryan , 2007 SCC 12 October 16, 2006March 15, 2007
Phoenix Bulk Carriers Ltd v Kremikovtzi Trade , 2007 SCC 13 February 14, 2007March 16, 2007
Lévis (City) v Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc , 2007 SCC 14 November 7, 2006March 22, 2007112
Council of Canadians with Disabilities v Via Rail Canada Inc , 2007 SCC 15 may 19. 2006March 23, 2007
Ambroise Joseph McKay v Her Majesty the Queen , 2007 SCC 16 March 23, 2007
Pecore v Pecore , 2007 SCC 17 December 6, 2006May 3, 2007
Madsen Estate v Saylor , 2007 SCC 18 December 7, 2006May 3, 2007
Dunne v Quebec (Deputy Minister of Revenue) , 2007 SCC 19 February 21, 2007May 10, 2007
Impulsora Turistica de Occidente, SA de CV v Transat Tours Canada Inc , 2007 SCC 20 April 25. 2007May 25, 2007
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
British Columbia (AG) v Christie , 2007 SCC 21 March 21, 2007May 25, 2007
Canadian Western Bank v Alberta , 2007 SCC 22 April 11, 2006May 31, 2007
British Columbia (AG) v Lafarge Canada Inc , 2007 SCC 23 November 8, 2005May 31, 2007
Strother v 3464920 Canada Inc , 2007 SCC 24 October 11, 2006June 1, 2007
R v Teskey , 2007 SCC 25 February 22, 2007June 7, 2007
R v Hape , 2007 SCC 26 October 12, 2006June 7, 20071211
Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn v British Columbia , 2007 SCC 27 February 8, 2006June 8, 2007
R v Couture , 2007 SCC 28 May 15, 2006June 15, 2007
London (City) v RSJ Holdings Inc , 2007 SCC 29 November 15, 2006June 21, 2007
Canada (AG) v JTI-Macdonald Corp , 2007 SCC 30 February 19, 2007June 28, 2007
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
Baier v Alberta , 2007 SCC 31 November 9, 2006June 29, 2007
R v Clayton , 2007 SCC 32 June 19. 2006July 6, 2007
Canada v Addison & Leyen Ltd , 2007 SCC 33 May 24, 2007July 12, 2007
Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs , 2007 SCC 34 December 13, 2006July 13, 2007
Rogers Wireless Inc v Muroff , 2007 SCC 35 December 14, 2006July 13, 2007
R v Steele , 2007 SCC 36 April 27, 2007July 20, 2007
Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc , 2007 SCC 37 January 16, 2007July 27, 200712
Syl Apps Secure Treatment Centre v BD , 2007 SCC 38 April 26, 2007July 27, 2007
R v Rhyason , 2007 SCC 39 May 17, 2007July 27, 2007
Alliance for Marriage and Family v AA , 2007 SCC 40 September 13, 2007
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board , 2007 SCC 41 November 10, 2006October 4, 2007
AYSA Amateur Youth Soccer Association v Canada (Revenue Agency) , 2007 SCC 42 May 16, 2007October 4, 2007
Named Person v Vancouver Sun , 2007 SCC 44April 24, 2007October 11, 2007
Kerr v Danier Leather Inc , 2007 SCC 45[ permanent dead link ]March 20, 2007October 12, 2007
Citadel General Assurance Co v Vytlingam , 2007 SCC 46December 11, 2006October 19, 2007
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co v Herbison , 2007 SCC 47December 11, 2006October 19, 2007
R v Singh , 2007 SCC 48May 23, 2007November 1, 2007
R v Trotta , 2007 SCC 49October 12, 2007November 8, 2007
ABB Inc v Domtar Inc , 2007 SCC 50November 8, 2006November 22, 2007
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBastaracheBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothstein
R v Grover , 2007 SCC 51November 6, 2007November 22, 2007
R v Jackson , 2007 SCC 52October 19, 2007December 6, 2007
R v Daley , 2007 SCC 53May 18, 2007December 13, 2007
Bruker v Marcovitz , 2007 SCC 54December 5, 2006December 14, 2007
Jedfro Investments (USA) Ltd v Jacyk , 2007 SCC 55October 11, 2007December 20, 2007

See also

Related Research Articles

In the Westminster parliamentary system, an early day motion (EDM) is a motion, expressed as a single sentence, tabled by members of Parliament that formally calls for debate "on an early day". In practice, they are rarely debated in the House and their main purpose is to draw attention to particular subjects of interest. Government ministers, Whips, Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the Speaker of the House of Commons and Deputy Speakers do not normally sign EDMs. EDMs remain open for signature for the duration of the parliamentary session.

In law, a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions. In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

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 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.

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.

References

  1. Motions released in 2007:

Table key

  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
  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.