 | This article may overuse or misuse color, making it hard to understand for color-blind users.(August 2023) |
The table below lists the decisions (known as reasons) 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.
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 | |
| |||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vivendi Canada Inc v Dell'Aniello, 2014 SCC 1 | April 24, 2013 | January 16, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v WEB, 2014 SCC 2 | January 16, 2014 | January 16, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3 | May 23, 2013 | January 17, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Davis, 2014 SCC 4 | January 17, 2014 | January 17, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v James, 2014 SCC 5 | January 17, 2014 | January 17, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Auclair, 2014 SCC 6 | January 21, 2014 | January 21, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Koczab, 2014 SCC 9 | January 22, 2014 | January 22, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Yelle, 2014 SCC 10 | January 22, 2014 | January 22, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| Hryniak v Mauldin , 2014 SCC 7 | March 26, 2013 | January 23, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc v Hryniak, 2014 SCC 8 | March 26, 2013 | January 23, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| R v Clarke, 2014 SCC 28 | January 24, 2014 | January 24, 2014 [1] | |||||||||||
| Telecommunications Employees Association of Manitoba Inc v Manitoba Telecom Services Inc, 2014 SCC 11 | May 16, 2013 | January 30, 2014 | |||||||||||
| AI Enterprises Ltd v Bram Enterprises Ltd , 2014 SCC 12 | May 22, 2013 | January 31, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Bernard v Canada (AG), 2014 SCC 13 | November 4, 2013 | February 7, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Flaviano, 2014 SCC 14 | February 17, 2014 | February 17, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Sekhon, 2014 SCC 15 | November 8, 2013 | February 20, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Babos, 2014 SCC 16 | October 9, 2013 | February 21, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Waite, 2014 SCC 17 | February 21, 2014 | February 21, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Hogg, 2014 SCC 18 | February 21, 2014 | February 21, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Hutchinson , 2014 SCC 19 | November 8, 2013 | March 7, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| Canada (AG) v Whaling, 2014 SCC 20 | October 15, 2013 | March 20, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Reference Re Supreme Court Act, ss 5 and 6 , 2014 SCC 21 | January 15, 2014 | March 21, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Vokurka, 2014 SCC 22 | March 21, 2014 | March 21, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Leinen, 2014 SCC 23 | March 21, 2014 | March 21, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 | October 16, 2013 | March 27, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Martin v Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board), 2014 SCC 25 | December 10, 2013 | March 28, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Summers, 2014 SCC 26 | January 23, 2014 | April 11, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Carvery, 2014 SCC 27 | January 23, 2014 | April 11, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co , 2014 SCC 29 | November 15, 2013 | April 23, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Jackson 2014 SCC 30 | April 23, 2014 | April 23, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2014 SCC 31 | December 5, 2013 | April 24, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Reference Re Senate Reform , 2014 SCC 32 | November 14, 2013 | April 25, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Dionne v Commission scolaire des Patriotes, 2014 SCC 33 | January 13, 2014 | May 1, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Immeubles Jacques Robitaille Inc v City of Quebec, 2014 SCC 34 | February 20, 2014 | May 2, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Union Carbide Canada Inc v Bombardier Inc, 2014 SCC 35 | December 11, 2013 | May 8, 2014 | |||||||||||
| John Doe v Ontario (Finance), 2014 SCC 36 | November 6, 2013 | May 9, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Harkat, 2014 SCC 37 | October 11, 2013 | May 14, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Canadian Artists' Representation v National Gallery of Canada , 2014 SCC 42 | May 15, 2014 | May 15, 2014 [2] | |||||||||||
| McCormick v Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP , 2014 SCC 39 | December 13, 2013 | May 22, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Canadian National Railway Co v Canada (AG) , 2014 SCC 40 | January 14, 2014 | May 23, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| R v Anderson, 2014 SCC 41 | March 19, 2014 | June 6, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Spencer , 2014 SCC 43 | December 9, 2013 | June 13, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia , 2014 SCC 44 | November 7, 2013 | June 26, 2014 | |||||||||||
| United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 503 v Wal‑Mart Canada Corp, 2014 SCC 45 | December 6, 2013 | June 27, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Quesnelle, 2014 SCC 46 | March 20, 2014 | July 9, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Sipos, 2014 SCC 47 | April 15, 2014 | July 10, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Grassy Narrows First Nation v Ontario (Natural Resources), 2014 SCC 48 | May 15, 2014 | July 11, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Canada (AG) v Confédération des syndicats nationaux, 2014 SCC 49 | January 20, 2014 | July 17, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Taylor, 2014 SCC 50 | April 23, 2014 | July 18, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Quebec (Commission des normes du travail) v Asphalte Desjardins inc, 2014 SCC 51 | March 28, 2014 | July 25, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| R v Hart, 2014 SCC 52 | December 3, 2013 | July 31, 2014 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||
| Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53 | December 12, 2013 | August 1, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Mian, 2014 SCC 54 | April 15, 2014 | September 12, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Bank of Montreal v Marcotte , 2014 SCC 55 | February 13, 2014 | September 19, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Amex Bank of Canada v Adams, 2014 SCC 56 | February 13, 2014 | September 19, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Marcotte v Fédération des caisses Desjardins du Québec, 2014 SCC 57 | February 13, 2014 | September 19, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Mack, 2014 SCC 58 | December 3, 2013 | September 26, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v British Columbia (AG), 2014 SCC 59 | April 14, 2014 | October 2, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Conception, 2014 SCC 60 | October 17, 2013 [3] | October 3, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Steele, 2014 SCC 61 | April 17, 2014 | October 9, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| Kazemi Estate v Islamic Republic of Iran, 2014 SCC 62 | March 18, 2014 | October 10, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Mohamed, 2014 SCC 63 | October 10, 2014 | October 10, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Bouchard, 2014 SCC 64 | October 16, 2014 | October 16, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Lepine, 2014 SCC 65 | October 16, 2014 | October 16, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| Imperial Oil v Jacques, 2014 SCC 66 | April 24, 2014 | October 17, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Thibodeau v Air Canada, 2014 SCC 67 | March 26, 2014 | October 28, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68 | March 25, 2014 | October 30, 2014 | |||||||||||
| R v Dunn, 2014 SCC 69 | November 5, 2014 | November 5, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| British Columbia Teachers' Federation v British Columbia Public School Employers' Association, 2014 SCC 70 | November 12, 2014 | November 12, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| Bhasin v Hrynew , 2014 SCC 71 | February 12, 2014 | November 13, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| Wakeling v United States of America, 2014 SCC 72 | April 22, 2014 | November 14, 2014 | * | ||||||||||
| R v Wills, 2014 SCC 73 | November 14, 2014 | November 20, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Day, 2014 SCC 74 | December 8, 2014 | December 8, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Wilcox, 2014 SCC 75 | December 8, 2014 | December 8, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v MacLeod, 2014 SCC 76 | December 10, 2014 | December 10, 2014 | V | ||||||||||
| R v Fearon , 2014 SCC 77 | May 23, 2014 | December 11, 2014 | |||||||||||
| Case name | Argued | Decided | McLachlin | LeBel | Fish | Abella | Rothstein | Cromwell | Moldaver | Karakatsanis | Wagner | Gascon | Côté |
| Justice | Reasons written | % Majority | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin |
| 59 of 60 (98.3%) | |||||||||
| Puisne Justice Louis LeBel |
| 55 of 57 (96.5%) | |||||||||
| Puisne Justice Morris Fish |
| 3 of 3 (100%) | |||||||||
| Pusine Justice Rosalie Abella |
| 55 of 63 (87.3%) | |||||||||
| Pusine Justice Marshall Rothstein |
| 59 of 62 (95.2%) | |||||||||
| Pusine Justice Thomas Cromwell |
| 58 of 62 (93.5%) | |||||||||
| Pusine Justice Michael Moldaver |
| 61 of 63 (96.8%) | |||||||||
| Pusine Justice Andromache Karakatsanis |
| 58 of 61 (95.1%) | |||||||||
| Pusine Justice Richard Wagner |
| 62 of 65 (95.4%) | |||||||||
| Puisne Justice Clément Gascon |
| 8 of 8 (100%) | |||||||||
| Puisne Justice Suzanne Côté |
| 0 of 0 (N/A) | |||||||||
Notes on statistics:
| |||||||||||
Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts. The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis.
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 law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".
In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.
In law, an en banc session is when all the judges of a court sit to hear a case, not just one judge or a smaller panel of judges. For courts like the United States Courts of Appeals in which each case is heard by a three-judge panel instead of the entire court, en banc review is usually used only for unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is an especially significant issue at stake. En banc is a French phrase meaning "in bench".
In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".
The Supreme Court of California is the highest and final court of appeals in the courts of the U.S. state of California. It is headquartered in San Francisco at the Earl Warren Building, but it regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts. Since 1850, the court has issued many influential decisions in a variety of areas including torts, property, civil and constitutional rights, and criminal law.
Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in both England and Wales and Scotland that have statutory jurisdiction to hear disputes between employers and employees.
The judiciary of Norway is hierarchical with the Supreme Court at the apex. The conciliation boards only hear certain types of civil cases. The district courts are deemed to be the first instance of the Courts of Justice. Jury (high) courts are the second instance, and the Supreme Court is the third instance.
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.
MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that magazines consisting largely of photographs of nude or near-nude male models are not considered "obscene" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1461, which prohibits the mailing of obscene material. It was the first case in which the Court engaged in plenary review of a Post Office Department order holding obscene matter "nonmailable".
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 Veterans' Review Board (VRB) is a statutory body within the Australian Government's Veterans' Affairs portfolio. The role of the VRB is to conduct merits review of certain decisions under the Veteran's Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) (the VEA) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth). The objective of the Board is to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick.<s133A VEA>
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 Supreme Court of Iran is the highest juridical authority in Iran, established to supervise the correct implementation of laws by courts of justice and consisting of the most prominent judges of the country. The head of the judiciary assigns criteria to ensure uniformity of judicial procedure and to carry out all legal responsibilities.
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.
The table below lists the decisions delivered from the bench by the Supreme Court of Canada during 2020. 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 2021. The table illustrates what reasons were filed by each justice in each case, and which justices joined each reason.
The shadow docket refers to motions and orders in the Supreme Court of the United States in cases which have not yet reached final judgment, decision on appeal, and oral argument. This especially refers to stays and injunctions, but also includes summary decisions and grant, vacate, remand (GVR) orders. The phrase "shadow docket" was first used in this context in 2015 by University of Chicago Law professor William Baude.