35898 Commission scolaire de Laval, et al. v. Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Laval, et al. (Labour relations – Judicial review)
On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec pronounced March 21, 2014. On June 29, 2009, the executive committee of the applicant Commission scolaire de Laval decided unanimously to terminate the employment of a teacher who was a member of the Syndicat de l’enseignement de la région de Laval (the “union”). The meeting that led to this decision had been held partly in public and partly in camera. The committee first ordered that the union and the teacher be heard in camera, and then asked the union and the teacher to withdraw so that it could deliberate, still in camera. The resolution setting out the decision to dismiss the teacher was subsequently adopted in a public meeting. That decision was contested by way of a grievance submitted to an arbitrator. In the course of the arbitration proceeding, the union summoned three members of the executive committee who had been at the meeting of June 29, 2009 to testify before the arbitrator. In a decision dated March 24, 2011, the arbitrator authorized the testimony of the three commissioner members, explaining that the executive committee did not benefit from “deliberative secrecy” and that it would be impossible to determine whether the termination of the employment relationship was consistent with the collective agreement [translation] “without a detailed knowledge of the deliberations”. The Quebec Superior Court granted the motion for judicial review and set aside the interlocutory arbitral decision. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, dismissed the motion for judicial review and restored the interlocutory arbitral decision
36081 Hartle, et al. v. Khadr (Criminal law — Sentencing — Extraordinary remedies — Habeas corpus)
On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Alberta pronounced July 22, 2014. The respondent is a Canadian citizen who was found fighting in Afghanistan in 2002 at 15 years of age. He was detained for eight years by the United States government in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before he pled guilty to five offences (the equivalent offences under Canadian law were first-degree murder, attempted murder, participation in terrorist group activities, commission of offences for a terrorist group and spying for the enemy). He was sentenced to eight-years’ imprisonment, with the first year to be served in the custody of the United States. After that first year, he applied under the International Transfer of Offenders Act, S.C. 2004, c. 21 (ITOA), to serve the remainder of his sentence in Canada. Upon his transfer to Canada, correctional officials assigned a sentence value to each of his offences. They interpreted the sentence as five separate concurrent sentences of eight years each, with the respondent to serve the balance of his sentence in a federal correctional facility. The respondent applied for habeas corpus on the basis that the ITOA mandated his placement in a provincial correctional facility. Under s. 20 of the ITOA, an adult Canadian who committed offences between the ages of 12 and 17 was to be detained in a provincial correctional facility for adults if the sentence imposed by the foreign entity could have been a youth sentence had the offence been committed in Canada. The chambers judge dismissed thehabeas corpus application, but the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, granted his habeas corpus application and ordered his transfer to a provincial correctional facility.
35946 Arsenault v. The Queen (Charter – Military offences – Whether offence under s. 130(1)(a) of National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c N-5 (“NDA”), is overbroad, contrary to s. 7 ofCharter)
On appeal from the judgment of the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada pronounced June 13, 2013. Several charges were laid against the applicant, including one count under s. 130 of the NDA of committing fraud contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code, two counts under s. 117(f) of the NDA of committing acts of a fraudulent nature not particularly specified in ss. 73 to 128 of the NDA, and one count under s. 125(a) of the NDA of wilfully making a false statement in a document he had signed that was required for official purposes. The charges related to a total of $30,725 he had been paid in separation expenses after being transferred from the base at Valcartier to the one at Gagetown, and to a total of $3,469 he had been paid as a post living differential. He was, in particular, alleged to have made a number of false monthly statements regarding his marital status, and to the effect that he had dependants. The Standing Court Martial dismissed the Applicant’s motion for declaration that ss. 130(1)(a) and 117(f) of the National Defence Act were unconstitutional. The Court Martial Appeal Court dismissed the appeal.