Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Justice Iacobucci

Last updated

This is a list of all the opinions written by Frank Iacobucci during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Contents

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Case nameIssueCo-authored byJoined by
Zink v Graybec Immobilier Inc
[1999], 1 SCR 6
Commercial law XXXX XXXX
Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v MNR
[1999] 1 SCR 10
Constitutional law
Taxation
XXXX XXX
Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
[1999] 1 SCR 497
Constitutional law – Equality rights under s. 15 of the CharterXXXX XXX
MJB Enterprises Ltd v Defence Construction (1951) Ltd
[1999] 1 SCR 619 [URL]
Contract – Tendering processXXXX XXX
R v Monney
[1999] 1 SCR 652 [URL]
Constitutional law; Customs and excise – Unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the CharterXXXX XXX
R v Gladue
[1999] 1 SCR 688 [URL]
Criminal law – Sentencing of aboriginal offendersXXXX XXX
Novak v Bond
[1999] 1 SCR 808 [URL]
Action – Limitation of actionsXXXX XXX
M v H
[1999] 2 SCR 3 [URL]
Constitutional law; Family law – Definition of "spouse" and equality rights under s. 15 of the CharterXXXX XXX
R v White
[1999] 2 SCR 417 [URL]
Constitutional law – Self-incrimination as part of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the CharterXXXX XXX
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
[1999] 2 SCR 817 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Delisle v Canada (Deputy AG)
[1999] 2 SCR 988 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Allsco Building Products Ltd v United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1288
[1999] 2 SCR 1136 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd v Can-Dive Services Ltd
[1999] 3 SCR 108 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Lance
[1999] 3 SCR 658 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Fleming
[1999] 3 SCR 662 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Guarantee Co of North America v Gordon Capital Corp
[1999] 3 SCR 423 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Groot
[1999] 3 SCR 664 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Mills
[1999] 3 SCR 668 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
65302 British Columbia Ltd v Canada
[1999] 3 SCR 804 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Pelletier
[1999] 3 SCR 863 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Terceira
[1999] 3 SCR 866 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX

Note: This part of the list is incomplete

2000

Case nameIssueCo-authored byJoined by
R v Wells
2000 SCC 10 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Global Securities Corp v British Columbia (Securities Commission)
2000 SCC 21 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's of London v Scalera
2000 SCC 24 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Sansalone v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co
2000 SCC 25 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Cacheway
2000 SCC 33 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Lovelace v Ontario
2000 SCC 37 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Oickle
2000 SCC 38 [URL]
Criminal law – Admissibility of confessionary evidenceXXXX Bastarache, Binnie, L'Heureux-Dubé, Major and McLachlin JJ
R v Starr
2000 SCC 40 [URL]
Criminal law – Admissibility of hearsay evidenceXXXX Arbour, Binnie, LeBel and Major JJ
R v Beauchamp
2000 SCC 54 [URL]
Criminal law – Appropriate charge to jury on reasonable doubt standardXXXX Gonthier, McLachlin, Bastarache and Binnie JJ
R v Russell
2000 SCC 55 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Knoblauch
2000 SCC 58 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Martel Building Ltd v Canada
2000 SCC 60 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v Canada (Minister of Justice)
2000 SCC 69 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION] Arbour and LeBel JJ

2001

Case nameIssueCo-authored byJoined by
R v Berntson
2001 SCC 9 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Backman v Canada
2001 SCC 10 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Spire Freezers Ltd v Canada
2001 SCC 11 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association v Ontario (AG)
2001 SCC 15 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v ZL
2001 SCC 16 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v WBC
2001 SCC 17 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Dutra
2001 SCC 29 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Trinity Western University v British Columbia College of Teachers
2001 SCC 31 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION] Bastarache JJ McLachlin CJ and Arbour, Binnie, Gonthier, LeBel and Major JJ
Committee for the Equal Treatment of Asbestos Minority Shareholders v Ontario (Securities Commission)
2001 SCC 37 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
McKinley v BC Tel
2001 SCC 38 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Monenco Ltd v Commonwealth Insurance Co
2001 SCC 49 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Berendsen v Ontario
2001 SCC 55 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Ulybel Enterprises Ltd
2001 SCC 56 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Ludco Enterprises Ltd v Canada
2001 SCC 62 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v JWR
2001 SCC 65 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Proulx v Quebec (AG)
2001 SCC 66 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Advance Cutting & Coring Ltd
2001 SCC 70 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Mentuck
2001 SCC 76 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v ONE
2001 SCC 77 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Golden
2001 SCC 83 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Osoyoos Indian Band v Oliver (Town of)
2001 SCC 85 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX

2002

Case nameIssueCo-authored byJoined by
Chieu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2002 SCC 3 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Al Sagban v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
2002 SCC 4 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Tessier
2002 SCC 6 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Bannon v Thunder Bay (City of)
2002 SCC 20 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Sarvanis v Canada
2002 SCC 28 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Housen v Nikolaisen
2002 SCC 33 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v VCAS
2002 SCC 36 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Berry v Pulley
2002 SCC 40 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Sierra Club of Canada v Canada (Minister of Finance)
2002 SCC 41 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Bell Express Vu Limited Partnership v Rex
2002 SCC 42 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Robicheau
2002 SCC 45 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Stewart v Canada
2002 SCC 46 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Wells v Canada
2002 SCC 47 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
First Vancouver Finance v MRN
2002 SCC 49 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Heredi v Fensom
2002 SCC 50 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Somersall v Friedman
2002 SCC 59 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Hall
2002 SCC 64 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX Arbour, LeBel and Major JJ
Krieger v Law Society of Alberta
2002 SCC 65 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
B v Ontario (Human Rights Commission)
2002 SCC 66 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Jarvis
2002 SCC 73 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Ling
2002 SCC 74 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Harvey
2002 SCC 80 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Squires
2002 SCC 82 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX

2003

Case nameIssueCo-authored byJoined by
R v RR
2003 SCC 4 [URL]
XXXXXX XXXX XXXX
R v Harriott
2003 SCC 5 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v MS
2003 SCC 11 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
R v Allen
2003 SCC 18 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Law Society of New Brunswick v Ryan
2003 SCC 20 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX XXX
Figueroa v Canada (AG)
2003 SCC 37 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]XXXX McLachlin CJ and Arbour, Bastarache, Binnie and Major JJ
Wewaykum Indian Band v Canada
2003 SCC 45 [URL]
Disqualification of judges on basis of biasXXXX XXX
R v Johnson
2003 SCC 46 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]Arbour J McLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ
R v Edgar
2003 SCC 47 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]Arbour J McLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ
R v Smith
2003 SCC 48 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]Arbour JMcLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ
R v Mitchell
2003 SCC 49 [URL]
Sentencing of dangerous and long-term offendersArbour JMcLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ
R v Kelly
2003 SCC 50 [URL]
Sentencing of dangerous and long-term offendersArbour JMcLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel and Deschamps JJ
Gurniak v Nordquist
2003 SCC 59 [URL]
Insurance Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ
Deloitte & Touche LLP v Ontario (Securities Commission)
2003 SCC 61 [URL]
Securities McLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ
Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (Minister of Education)
2003 SCC 62
Appeal; Constitutional law Arbour J McLachlin CJ and Gonthier and Bastarache JJ
Odhavji Estate v Woodhouse
2003 SCC 69
Action; Civil procedure; Torts McLachlin CJ and Gonthier, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ

2004

Case nameIssueCo-authored byJoined by
Garland v Consumers' Gas Co
2004 SCC 25 [URL]
Action – Restitution and unjust enrichment Major, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ
Alberta Union of Provincial Employees v Lethbridge Community College
2004 SCC 28 [URL]
Administrative law; Labour law – Scope of labour arbitration board's remedial jurisdiction McLachlin CJ and Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish JJ
Application under s 83.28 of the Criminal Code (Re)
2004 SCC 42 [URL]
[DESCRIPTION]Arbour J McLachlin CJ and Major, Binnie and Fish JJ
Vancouver Sun (Re)
2004 SCC 43 [URL]
Criminal law Arbour JMcLachlin CJ and Binnie, Fish and Major JJ
R v Demers
2004 SCC 46 [URL]
Constitutional law – Division of powersBastarache JMcLachlin CJ and Major, Binnie, Arbour, Deschamps and Fish JJ
Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem
2004 SCC 47 [URL]
Constitutional law – Freedom of religion McLachlin CJ and Arbour, Fish and Major JJ
R v Mann
2004 SCC 52 [URL]
Constitutional law; Criminal law; Professional law – Search and seizure Binnie, Fish, LeBel and Major JJ

Related Research Articles

The Implied Bill of Rights is a judicial theory in Canadian jurisprudence that recognizes that certain basic principles are underlying the Constitution of Canada.

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Libel case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Binnie</span> Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1998 to 2011

William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from January 8, 1998 to October 27, 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few appointed directly from private practice. On his retirement from the Court, he was described by The Globe and Mail as "arguably the country's premier judge", by La Presse as "probably the most influential judge in Canada of the last decade" and by the Toronto Star as “one of the strongest hands on the court.”

The Double aspect doctrine in Canadian constitutional law is one that allows for laws to be created by both provincial and federal governments in relation to the same subject matter. Typically, the federalist system assigns subject matters of legislation to a single head of power. However, certain matters have several dimensions to them, such that for one purpose the matter will fall to one head of power, while for another purpose, it will fall to the other. For example, highway traffic laws fall into the property and civil rights power of the province, but equally, can be a criminal offence which is in the criminal law power of the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada by Beverley McLachlin</span>

The following is a list of Supreme Court of Canada opinions written by Beverley McLachlin during her tenure on the Court.

This is a list of all the opinions written by John C. Major during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a list of all the opinions written by Claire L'Heureux-Dubé during her tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a list of all the reasons written by Michel Bastarache during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a list of all the reasons written by Marshall Rothstein during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a list of all the opinions written by Charles Gonthier during his tenure as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

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.

This is a list of opinions written by Antonio Lamer during his tenure as on the Supreme Court of Canada between March 28, 1980, and January 6, 2000.

This is a list of opinions written by Peter Cory, during his time as a Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada between 1 February 1989 and 1 June 1999.

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.

List of reasons written by Justice Bertha Wilson during her time as puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

<i>Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd is a 1998 judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the priority of employees interests when a company declares bankruptcy. The judgment hinged on the interpretation of the Employment Standards Act and has been taken to mark the Supreme Court of Canada's adoption of the purposive approach to legislative interpretation. It has since been frequently cited in subsequent decisions of Canadian courts, nearly every time legislation is interpreted.

<i>Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd v Canada is a significant case of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the application of Canadian income tax law, as well as the purposive interpretation of statutes.