2012 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada

Last updated

The table below lists the decisions (known as reasons) 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.

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

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 nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
Toronto Dominion Bank v Canada, 2012 SCC 1 January 12, 2012January 12, 2012V
Catalyst Paper Corp v North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2 October 18, 2011January 20, 2012
Merck Frosst Canada Ltd v Canada (Health), 2012 SCC 3 November 12, 2010February 3, 2012
Reference Re Broadcasting Act, 2012 SCC 4 January 16, 2012February 9, 2012
R v DAI, 2012 SCC 5 May 17, 2011February 10, 2012
R v TLM, 2012 SCC 6 February 14, 2012February 14, 2012V
SL v Commission scolaire des Chênes, 2012 SCC 7 May 18, 2011February 17, 2012
Richard v Time Inc, 2012 SCC 8 January 18, 2011February 28, 2012
Momentous.ca Corp v Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Ltd, 2012 SCC 9 February 10, 2012March 15, 2012
Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10 October 19, 2011March 16, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
R v Eastgaard, 2012 SCC 11 March 21, 2012March 21, 2012V
Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 January 26, 2011March 22, 2012
R v Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 October 17, 2011March 23, 2012
Fundy Settlement v Canada, 2012 SCC 14 March 13, 2012April 12, 2012
R v Kociuk, 2012 SCC 15 April 12, 2012April 12, 2012V
R v Tse, 2012 SCC 16 November 18, 2011April 13, 2012
Club Resorts Ltd v Van Breda , 2012 SCC 17 March 21, 2011April 18, 2012
Éditions Écosociété Inc v Banro Corp, 2012 SCC 18 March 25, 2011April 18, 2012
Breeden v Black, 2012 SCC 19 March 22, 2011April 18, 2012
Calgary (City) v Canada, 2012 SCC 20 November 15, 2011April 26, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
R v Jesse, 2012 SCC 21 December 9, 2011April 27, 2012
R v RP, 2012 SCC 22 December 16, 2011May 11, 2012
Tessier Ltée v Quebec (Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail), 2012 SCC 23 January 17, 2012May 17, 2012
R v Maybin, 2012 SCC 24 December 15, 2011May 18, 2012
R v Roy, 2012 SCC 26 November 9, 2011June 1, 2012
Annapolis County District School Board v Marshall, 2012 SCC 27 May 8, 2012June 7, 2012
R v Gibbons, 2012 SCC 28 December 14, 2011June 8, 2012
Halifax (Regional Municipality) v Canada (Public Works and Government Services), 2012 SCC 29 December 12, 2011June 15, 2012
Westmount (City) v Rossy, 2012 SCC 30 February 13, 2012June 22, 2012
R v Mayuran, 2012 SCC 31 April 19, 2012June 28, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32 February 17, 2012June 29, 2012
R v Venneri, 2012 SCC 33 April 16, 2012July 6, 2012
Entertainment Software Association v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 34 December 6, 2011July 12, 2012
Rogers Communications Inc v Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 35 December 6, 2011July 12, 2012
Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36 December 6, 2011July 12, 2012
Alberta (Education) v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) , 2012 SCC 37 December 7, 2011July 12, 2012
Re Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, 2012 SCC 38 December 7, 2011July 12, 2012
R v Punko, 2012 SCC 39 March 21, 2012July 20, 2012
R v Vu, 2012 SCC 40 February 15, 2012July 26, 2012
R v Walle, 2012 SCC 41 April 13, 2012July 27, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
R v Knott, 2012 SCC 42 December 14, 2011July 31, 2012
Canada v Craig, 2012 SCC 43 March 23, 2012August 1, 2012
R v Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44 February 16, 2012August 3, 2012
Canada (AG) v Downtown East Side Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al, 2012 SCC 45 January 19, 2012September 21, 2012
AB v Bragg Communications Inc, 2012 SCC 46 May 10, 2012September 27, 2012
R v Mabior, 2012 SCC 47 February 8, 2012October 5, 2012
R v DC, 2012 SCC 48 February 8, 2012October 5, 2012
R v Prokofiew, 2012 SCC 49 November 8, 2011October 12, 2012
R v Rochon, 2012 SCC 50 October 16, 2012October 16, 2012V
Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board , 2012 SCC 51 [ permanent dead link ]March 20, 2012October 17, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
Canada v GlaxoSmithKline Inc , 2012 SCC 52 January 13, 2012October 18, 2012
R v Cole, 2012 SCC 53 May 15, 2012October 19, 2012
R v Picot, 2012 SCC 54 October 19, 2012October 19, 2012V
Opitz v Wrzesnewskyj, 2012 SCC 55 July 10, 2012October 25, 2012
R v Boudreault, 2012 SCC 56 June 6, 2012October 26, 2012
R v St-Onge Lamoureux, 2012 SCC 57 October 13, 2011November 2, 2012
R v Dineley, 2012 SCC 58 October 13, 2011November 2, 2012
R v Nedelcu, 2012 SCC 59 March 16, 2012November 7, 2012
Teva Canada Ltd v Pfizer Canada Inc , 2012 SCC 60 April 18, 2012November 8, 2012
Moore v British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 March 22, 2012November 9, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
R v PDT, 2012 SCC 62 November 9, 2012November 9, 2012V
R v DJW, 2012 SCC 63 November 16, 2012November 16, 2012V
Canada (AG) v Kane, 2012 SCC 64 November 6, 2012November 23, 2012
Construction Labour Relations v Driver Iron Inc, 2012 SCC 65 November 15, 2012November 29, 2012
R v Aucoin, 2012 SCC 66 May 16, 2012November 30, 2012
Newfoundland and Labrador v AbitibiBowater Inc , 2012 SCC 67 November 16, 2011December 7, 201212
Reference Re Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2010-167 and Broadcasting Order CRTC 2010-168, 2012 SCC 68 April 17, 2012December 13, 2012
R v Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69 June 11, 2012December 14, 2012
Sriskandarajah v United States of America, 2012 SCC 70 June 11, 2012December 14, 2012
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v Canada (AG), 2012 SCC 71 February 9, 2012December 19, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner
R v NS, 2012 SCC 72 December 8, 2011December 20, 2012
R v Yumnu, 2012 SCC 73 March 15, 2012December 21, 2012
R v Emms, 2012 SCC 74 March 15, 2012December 21, 2012
R v Davey, 2012 SCC 75 March 15, 2012December 21, 2012
Case nameArguedDecidedMcLachlinBinnieLeBelDeschampsFishAbellaCharronRothsteinCromwellMoldaverKarakatsanisWagner

2012 Statistics

JusticeReasons written% Majority
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
11

0

0

3

Total=14
58 of 63 (92.1%)
Puisne Justice Ian Binnie
0

0

0

1

Total=1
4 of 5 (80%)
Puisne Justice Louis LeBel
11

2

0

4

Total=17
58 of 67 (86.6%)
Puisne Justice Marie Deschamps
9

0

0

1

Total=10
58 of 61 (95.1%)
Puisne Justice Morris Fish
6

1

0

3

Total=10
56 of 65 (86.2%)
Pusine Justice Rosalie Abella
8

1

0

3

Total=12
64 of 67 (95.5%)
Puisne Justice Louise Charron
0

0

0

0

Total=0
4 of 4 (100%)
Pusine Justice Marshall Rothstein
7

0

0

3

Total=10
61 of 68 (89.7%)
Pusine Justice Thomas Cromwell
6

0

1

5

Total=12
55 of 65 (84.6%)
Pusine Justice Michael Moldaver
11

0

0

0

Total=11
53 of 53 (100%)
Pusine Justice Andromache Karakatsanis
4

0

0

0

Total=4
51 of 52 (98.1%)
Pusine Justice Richard Wagner
0

0

0

0

Total=0
2 of 2 (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 decimal.


Related Research Articles

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 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 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.

The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2016. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason.

The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2017. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason.

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.

References

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.