36818 Jo Anne Nancy Alexander v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law — Defences — Non-mental disorder automatism
The applicant does not dispute she killed her husband John by hitting his head several times with a baseball bat or a hammer. She claims she does not remember inflicting the blows but only recalls the shocking sight of her husband with a knife in his ear. The applicant requested that the trial judge instruct the jury on both mental and non-mental disorder automatism. The judge instructed the jury only on non-mental disorder automatism. The jury convicted the applicant of second degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36711 Greenpeace Canada, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, Northwatch, Canadian Environmental Law Association v. Ontario Power Generation Inc.
- and between -
Greenpeace Canada, Canadian Environmental Law Association v. Ontario Power Generation Inc.
- and between -
Greenpeace Canada, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, Northwatch, Canadian Environmental Law Association v. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
- and between -
Greenpeace Canada, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, Northwatch, Canadian Environmental Law Association v. Attorney General of Canada, Minister of the Environment, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister of Transport
- and between -
Greenpeace Canada and Canadian Environmental Law Association v. Attorney General of Canada
Environmental law — Environmental assessment — Site preparation for nuclear power generation station
In 2006, Ontario Power Generation (“OPG”) began the approvals process for installing and operating up to four new nuclear power generation units at the existing Darlington Nuclear Generating Station located on the shore of Lake Ontario. It also applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for a license to prepare the site for construction. When OPG submitted its Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), Ontario had not selected a reactor technology for the project, so the EIS was based on a “bounding approach” — significant design elements were identified and the adverse environmental effects for each option were assessed. However, bounding scenarios were not provided for hazardous substance emissions, on-site chemical inventories. The Panel held public hearings and submitted its Joint Review Panel Environmental Assessment Report to the Minister. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, S.C. 1992, c. 37 (rep. S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 66) (the “CEAA”), s. 16, sets out the matters review panels conducting an environmental assessments are required to consider. The Panel concluded that the project was not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, provided that the mitigation measures proposed were taken, the OPG’s commitments were kept, and 67 recommendations were implemented. In its recommendations, it deferred the assessment of storage for spent nuclear fuel and severe common cause accidents until after the reactor technology was chosen. On the strength of the Report, the Panel issued a 10-year licence allowing OPG to prepare the site.
The applicants filed an application for judicial review of the Report and another challenging the issuance of the licence. Judicial review of the Report was allowed in part; judicial review concerning the licence was allowed. Three appeals were filed and heard together. The judge was held to have misapplied the reasonableness standard and the Panel’s decision was found to be reasonable. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the applications for judicial review.
36787 Telecommunications Workers Union (T.W.U.), United Steelworkers Local Union 1944 (formerly known as Telecommunication Workers Union (T.W.U.)) v. Telus Communications Inc.
Administrative law — Labour law arbitration award — Dismissal
Cynthia Florestal had been an employee of the respondent Telus Communications Inc. since December 2008. In the summer of 2011, Ms. Florestal was absent from work several times due to illness. During her first two absences, at her employer’s request, she provided medical certificates as proof. However, during the third absence, she failed to comply with her employer’s repeated requests and did not provide a medical certificate within the required time, which resulted in her dismissal. The union then filed an unjust dismissal grievance and requested that Ms. Florestal be reinstated. After analyzing the evidence filed, the arbitrator dismissed the grievance on the ground that the dismissal was not unreasonable, wrongful or discriminatory. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the motion for judicial review. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the motion for judicial review.
36857 Hachmi Hammami v. Karim Rachid Krey, Philippe Daoust, Diane Daoust, René Leblanc
Evidence — Secret contract — Motion to dismiss appeal
The applicant challenged a real estate transaction even though the act of sale by which he had sold the immovable in question to his son, the respondent Karim Rachid Krey, had been registered at the registry office. The applicant alleged that his son was his prête‑nom and therefore had neither the capacity nor the authority to sell the immovable in question to the respondents Philippe and Diane Daoust. The respondents brought an action in eviction followed by a motion to dismiss the applicant’s defence. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the motion to dismiss defence against action in eviction from immovable property. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.