Podcasts GovernmentSupreme Court of Canada Hearings (English Audio)

Listen to Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (English Audio) in the App

(3,738)(249,730)

Save favourites

Alarm

Sleep timer

Save favourites

Alarm

Sleep timer

Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (English Audio)

SCC Hearings Podcast

Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of C...

Government

Available Episodes

5 of 169

Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Attorney General of Québec, et al. (40786)
The appellant, Opsis Airport Services Inc., is a federal company that operates the emergency call dispatch centre at Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport. The respondent the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions charged Opsis with operating an enterprise that carried on private security activities without holding an agency licence of the appropriate class, contrary to ss. 4 and 114 of the Private Security Act, CQLR, c. S-3.5 (“PSA”). Opsis admitted that, without holding an agency licence, it was carrying on activities related to electronic security systems, which are normally subject to the PSA. However, it challenged the PSA’s constitutional applicability. The Court of Québec held that the PSA applied to Opsis and therefore accepted the guilty pleas, convicted Opsis of the offences as charged and imposed fines on it. The court found that the PSA did not intrude on the core of a federal head of power because the PSA had no impact or only a very small impact on Opsis’s operations. The Superior Court allowed Opsis’s appeal, declared the PSA inapplicable to Opsis’s activities related to the operation of the emergency call centre pursuant to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, quashed the convictions and acquitted Opsis of the offences charged. The judge held that the PSA intruded on the core of the federal aeronautics power, which included airport security, and that the intrusion constituted an impairment of the core of the federal power. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the Superior Court’s judgment and affirmed the convictions entered by the Court of Québec. Although Opsis’s activities fell within the core of Parliament’s aeronautics power, the application of the PSA did not cause any actual impairment. A purely speculative or hypothetical impairment did not suffice. Ruel J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. He was of the view that if the PSA were applicable to Opsis’s operations, the provisions would impair the core of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics safety and security. Argued Date 2024-12-11 Keywords Constitutional law — Interjurisdictional immunity — Impairment — Evidence — Federal paramountcy — Conflict of purposes — Provincial offences — Licences — Application of provincial statute to airport security activities — Whether Private Security Act must be declared constitutionally inapplicable to appellant pursuant to doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity on ground that it impairs Parliament’s exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics — Whether Private Security Act must be declared constitutionally inoperative in relation to appellant pursuant to doctrine of federal paramountcy on ground that there is conflict of purposes between it and federal legislative scheme relating to aeronautics — Whether Private Security Act and associated regulations apply to appellant’s airport security activities, which are essentially public and governmental in nature — Private Security Act, CQLR, c. S-3.5. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).
--------
2:39:12
Dustin Kinamore v. His Majesty the King (40964)
(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Mr. Kinamore, when he was 22-years old, and the complainant, when she was 16-years old, met at a motorcycle shop and they exchanged messages for a few months. They met for dinner and a movie at Mr. Kinmore’s apartment. Afterwards, Mr. Kinamore was charged with sexual assault. Both the complainant and Mr. Kinamore testified at trial. The complainant described a sexual assault. Mr. Kinamore described a consensual sexual encounter. Both the Crown and the defence tendered evidence of prior messages between the complainant and Mr. Kinamore. In many text messages, the complainant repeatedly stated that she did not intend to have a sexual relationship with Mr. Kinamore. However, the defence led evidence of communications of a sexual nature and some prior communications entered into evidence by Crown counsel contain content that was sexual in nature or that the defence argued was sexual in nature. No voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of any evidence led by Crown counsel and no application was made pursuant to s. 276 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, to determine the admissibility of any evidence led by the defence. Mr. Kinamore was convicted of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal. Argued Date 2024-12-05 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Complainant’s sexual activity — Text messages — Accused charged with sexual assault — Whether prior text messages between accused and complainant were of a sexual nature — If so, whether voir dire was required to determine admissibility of any evidence of prior communications of a sexual nature that was led by Crown counsel — Whether application under s. 276 of Criminal Code was required to determine admissibility of any evidence of prior communications of a sexual nature that was led by defence counsel — Whether complainant’s prior text messages were relevant to whether she consented to sexual activity? Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).
--------
2:42:11
Michael Paul Dunmore v. Raha Mehralian (41108)
The parties were married in June 2015. They lived in Japan until 2016 when they moved to the United Arab Emirates. They separated for a period in 2017, but reconciled in 2018 and then lived together in Oman until March 2020 when they travelled to Ontario for a number of reasons, including to visit Mr. Dunmore’s parents. They had planned to return to Oman in early April 2020 however, the pandemic precluded them from doing so and they stayed with Mr. Dunmore’s parents in Ontario until January 2021. In the meantime, Ms. Mehralian became pregnant and their son M was born in Ontario in December 2020. The parties and M returned to Oman in January 2021 but came back to Ontario in April 2021. The parties then separated in May 2021. Mr. Dunmore moved to the United Arab Emirates and later Oman, while Ms. Mehralian remained in Ontario with M. Ms. Mehralian commenced proceedings in Ontario in June 2021, seeking a divorce, corollary relief and equalization of property. At the same time, Mr. Dunmore commenced a court proceeding in Oman seeking a divorce and joint custody. Ms. Mehralian contested the jurisdiction of the Omani courts, but in March 2022, the Omani Court of Appeal found that Oman had jurisdiction. In subsequent litigation in which both parties participated, an Omani lower court as well as the Omani Court of Appeal found that the parties had been validly divorced in accordance with Omani law and awarded primary custody of M to Ms. Mehralian. Mr. Dunmore brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court seeking an order recognizing the validity of the Omani divorce in Ontario and an order returning M to Oman. The two issues were heard separately by two different judges. One judge found that the Omani divorce should be recognized in Ontario. The second judge found that M should not be ordered returned to Oman. Ms. Mehralian appealed the first order and Mr. Dunmore appealed the second. Both appeals were dismissed. Argued Date 2024-12-09 Keywords Family law — Custody — Habitual residence — How should Canadian courts determine the habitual residence of children allegedly abducted from or withheld from a non-Hague Convention signatory state — How should courts balance the countervailing policy objectives outlined in s. 19 of Ontario’s Children’s Law Reform Act — Whether the statutory definition of habitual residence should apply to cases involving non-Hague Convention signatory countries or should the reformulated hybrid test for habitual residence set out in Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev apply — If the statutory definition applies, whether shared parental intention should be the focus of the analysis — Whether the lower courts erred in finding that Ontario has jurisdiction — Whether the lower courts erred in law in exercising jurisdiction over the child in the face of the respondent’s attornment to the jurisdiction of the Omani courts — Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).
--------
2:17:00
Pascal Varennes v. His Majesty the King (40662)
In 2015, the appellant was charged with the second degree murder of his spouse. Before his trial, a Quebec Superior Court judge allowed his motion for the trial to take place before a judge alone, in accordance with s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, despite the absence of consent from the respondent prosecutor. The judge was of the opinion that a prosecutor’s decision to consent to a trial before a judge alone does not fall within the core of prosecutorial discretion but is instead a tactical decision subject to a court’s authority to control its own processes. Considering the particularities of the case, the judge was of the view that the accused had discharged his burden of demonstrating that the prosecutor’s decision was unreasonable or unfair in the circumstances. After a trial without jury, the accused was acquitted of second degree murder, but he was convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent prosecutor’s appeal and ordered, among other things, that a new trial be held before a jury on the charge of second degree murder. The court was of the opinion that the trial judge had erred by applying the unreasonableness standard in her review of the prosecutor’s refusal to consent despite the fact that the accused had to prove that this refusal constituted an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal found that the accused had failed to prove this and that the impugned judgment was therefore vitiated by an error of law that had the effect of granting the Superior Court jurisdiction that it did not have. The accused’s trial was therefore a nullity. Argued Date 2024-12-06 Keywords Criminal law — Courts — Jurisdiction — Procedure — Trial — Trial without jury — Trial judge allowing appellant’s motion for trial without jury despite absence of consent of prosecutor — Discretion of prosecutor to consent to trial without jury — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in finding that trial judge had held appellant’s trial “without jurisdiction” — Whether prosecutor’s appeal of order made by trial judge was governed by s. 676(1)(a) of Criminal Code — If trial was held without jurisdiction, whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in finding that irregularity could not be corrected through application of s. 686(4) of Criminal Code while denying stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 686(8) — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 473, 686(4), (8). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).
--------
2:25:35
Dorinela Pepa v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (40840)
Section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) provides foreign nationals who hold a permanent resident visa with the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) against a decision to make a removal order against them made under s. 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing. In March 2018, the appellant, Dorinela Pepa, came to Canada while in possession of a permanent resident visa as an accompanying dependent child of her father. However, before she came to Canada, Ms. Pepa married. On her arrival in Canada, she advised the point of entry officer of her marriage. Because of the change in her circumstances, Ms. Pepa was admitted for further examination and was not landed. The further examination occurred in the next month, followed by two reports under s. 44 of the IRPA. An admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division (“ID”) of the Immigration and Refugee Board commenced in September 2018. Her visa had expired earlier that month. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ID issued an exclusion order against her. She appealed the decision to the IAD, but the IAD concluded that she had no right to appeal under s. 63(2) because, when the removal order was issued, her visa had expired and so was no longer valid. Ms. Pepa’s application to the Federal Court and appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal were dismissed, with those courts concluding that the IAD’s decision was reasonable. Argued Date 2024-12-04 Keywords Administrative law — Boards and Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division – Permanent resident visa expiring after its holder arrived in Canada without being landed but before removal order issued — Visa holder appealing to Immigration Appeal Division — Immigration Appeal Division interpreting statutory provision at issue as not conferring it jurisdiction — Application for judicial review to Federal Court and appeal to Federal Court of Appeal dismissed on basis that interpretation by Immigration Appeal Division was reasonable — What is the appropriate standard of review to the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division regarding the statutory right of appeal under statutory provision at issue? — Whether the Immigration Appeal Division erred in construing statutory provision at issue by determining that the appellant lost her right of appeal because the validity date of her permanent resident visa had passed prior to the issuance of the exclusion order — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 63(2). Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).
--------
2:23:46

More Government podcasts

About Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (English Audio)

Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada’s highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court’s website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.

Podcast website