Top Five 2009

Each year at OJEN’s Toronto Summer Law Institute, a judge from the Court of Appeal for Ontario identifies five cases that are of significance in the educational setting. This summary, based on these comments and observations, is appropriate for discussion and debate in the classroom setting.

Summaries of important legal cases from 2009, as identified by the Honourable Mr. Justice Stephen Goudge of the Ontario Court of Appeal at OJEN’s 2009 Summer Law Institute.

1. R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 SCR 353

In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) created a new test for determining whether evidence obtained by a Charter breach should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, replacing the test from R. v. Collins. The R. v. Grant case was released concurrently with R. v. Harrison, 2009 SCC 34. The full decision is available here.

2.  R v Harrison, 2009 SCC 34, [2009] 2 SCR 494

In a decision rendered concurrently with R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) applied the new analysis for excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter to determine if evidence of cocaine trafficking should be excluded. The full decision is available here.

3.  Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 SCR 567

This case addressed whether the new licensing requirements in the province of Alberta, requiring every driver’s license to contain a photograph of the licensee, violates freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter. The full decision is avilable here.

4. Canadian Federation of Students v Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority – British Columbia Component, 2009 SCC 31, [2009] 2 SCR 295

This case dealt with whether a regulation banning “political” advertisements on buses violated freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The full decision is available here.

5. AC v Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services), 2009 SCC 30, [2009] 2 SCR 181

This case examined the ability of the courts to order medical treatment for children under 16 years of age. The full decision is available here.