Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (Floor Audio)

In January 2018, the respondent, Mr. Thibodeau, filed six complaints under the Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th supp.) (OLA) with the intervener, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada against the appellant, St. John’s International Airport Authority (SJIAA) with regards to the violation of ss. 22 and 23 of the OLA related to the language of communication and services. In summary, Mr. Thibodeau alleged that the SJIAA: (1) has an exclusively English presence on social media such as Facebook, YouTube and Instagram; (2) has a website with an English-only URL and of which the French version is not of equal quality to the English version; (3) publishes its press releases in English only; (4) makes certain documents on its website, including annual reports and its master plan, available in English only; (5) uploads content on Twitter almost exclusively in English; and (6) displays certain automated teller machine (ATM) signage in English only within the airport.Mr. Thibodeau’s complaints resulted in the issuance of two separate reports by the Commissioner: the first addressed the complaints concerning various types of content posted on social media and online, while the second focused on the complaint related to the ATM. With respect to the first complaint, the Commissioner found that the OLA had been breached. The Commissioner recommended that all content posted by SJIAA, both on social media and online, be of equal quality in both official languages. With respect to the second complaint, because the Official Languages Regulations expressly designates ATMs as a service within the meaning of s. 23(2) of the OLA, the Commissioner concluded that the OLA had been contravened. However, given that the SJIAA had, by the time the report was issued, already replaced the signage with universally recognizable pictograms, the Commissioner declined to issue any recommendations and closed the file.Following the issuance of the Commissioner’s recommendations, Mr. Thibodeau commenced an application under s. 77 of the OLA, seeking a declaration that the OLA had been breached and requesting that the Court order SJIAA to issue a letter of apology and award him $9,000 in damages. The Federal Court has granted the application for a remedy and ordered the payment of $5,000 in damages against SJIAA. The majority of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Argued Date

2026-04-20

Keywords

Official languages — Airport authorities — Transfer of the administration of airports pursuant to the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act — Obligations pursuant to the Official Languages Act for the local bodies operating airports — Are the authorities subject to the “head office rule” created by s. 22 of the Official Languages Act, or was that the rule excluded by the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act? — What is the proper definition of the “travelling public” under the Official Languages Act? — What test should be used to determine when a communication of service is intended for the travelling public, rather than the general public? — Can an applicant under s. 77 of the Official Languages Act receive damages from any contravention of the Official Languages Act, even if the applicant’s own personally-held language rights are not implemented by that contravention? — Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Suppl), ss. 22, 23 and 77 — Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matter) Act, S.C. 1992, c. 5, s. 4(1)

Notes

(Federal) (Civil) (By Leave)

Language

Floor 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).

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder following a trial by a judge sitting with a jury. The central issue at trial was whether the appellant had acted in self-defence during an exchange of gunfire with the deceased.On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to adduce further evidence from a third-party witness, who would have testified to the deceased being the aggressor in the altercation, as well as evidence from the law clerk of trial counsel as to why the evidence was not presented at trial. The majority of the Court of Appeal concluded that the proposed fresh evidence from the third-party witness was not reasonably capable of belief and therefore did not meet the criteria for admission. The majority dismissed the motion to adduce further evidence and dismissed the appeal.The dissenting judge would have granted the motion to adduce further evidence. In the dissenting judge’s view, the proposed fresh evidence was reasonably capable of belief and could reasonably be expected to have affected the result of the trial. Accordingly, the dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Argued Date

2026-04-17

Keywords

Criminal Law — Evidence — Fresh evidence — Court of Appeal dismissing motion to adduce fresh evidence — Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing motion to adduce further evidence — Whether fresh evidence would reasonably be expected to have affected result of trial — Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal from conviction

Notes

(Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Language

Floor 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).

The respondent, Damodar Arapakota, was charged with bribing a foreign public official, contrary to s. 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34. The Crown alleged that the respondent bribed an official with the government of Botswana by paying for the official’s family vacation in Orlando, Florida, in return for which the respondent received letters confirming the government of Botswana’s intention to award a contract to his company and confirming the value of the prospective contract. The trial judge found that the respondent conferred a material benefit on the official, but that the benefit was not consideration for the letters that the official later provided. She further found that the letters did not rise to the level of a material or tangible economic advantage sufficient to trigger liability under s. 3(1)(a). As a result, she acquitted the respondent. The Crown appealed the acquittal. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal finding that while the trial judge misinterpreted one of the elements of the offence at s. 3(1)(a), this error had no impact on the proper disposition of the case. Justice Monahan, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. He found that the trial judge erred in her interpretation of s. 3(1)(a), which had a material impact on the verdict.

Argued Date

2026-04-16

Keywords

Criminal law — Bribing a foreign public official — Elements of offence — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s. 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, S.C. 1998, c. 34 — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge’s legal error did not affect the verdict.

Notes

(Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right)

Language

Floor 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).

R.B.-C., an Iranian citizen in Canada on a post-graduation work permit, was convicted for sexual assault. More than 14 months after conviction, a conditional sentence of two years less a day plus probation was ordered. R.B.-C. applied for a stay of proceedings as a remedy for unreasonable delay during the sentencing phase of proceedings in breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The motions judge applied R. v. Charley, 2019 ONCA 726, which adopted the framework set out in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and which set a five-month presumptive ceiling for post-verdict delay. After calculating total delay and deductions, the motions judge derived a net delay below the presumptive five-month ceiling and dismissed the motion to stay proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal. It held post-conviction delay exceeded the five-month presumptive ceiling and the appropriate remedy was to reduce the sentence to 20 months.

Argued Date

2026-01-16

Keywords

Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Remedies — What is the test for unreasonable delay in the sentencing phase — What is the appropriate remedy for unreasonable delay in the sentencing phase?

Notes

(Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case)

Language

Floor 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).

The Act respecting the laicity of the State was passed and assented to on June 16, 2019. Its purposes include affirming the laicity of the state in Quebec and specifying the general obligations arising therefrom, prohibiting the listed persons from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions and requiring those persons to perform their functions with their face uncovered. The Act also contains provisions through which the legislature exercises the override power granted to it by s. 52 of the Quebec Charter and s. 33 of the Canadian Charter and permits the Act to apply notwithstanding certain rights and freedoms.Once the Act came into force, a number of persons, groups of persons and organizations brought separate proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the Act or certain of its provisions. They raised constitutional grounds, some of which were related to the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter. The Superior Court largely dismissed the challenge, except on two points. The Court of Appeal arrived at the same conclusions except as regards the educational language rights that s. 23 of the Canadian Charter guarantees to Canadian citizens belonging to Quebec’s English linguistic minority. Unlike the trial judge, the Court of Appeal found that the Act does not infringe s. 23.

Argued Date

2026-03-26

Keywords

Constitutional law — Constitutional validity — Division of powers — Pre-Confederation legislation — Constitutional architecture and unwritten principles — Charters of rights — Notwithstanding clauses — Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes — Minority language educational rights — Democratic rights of citizens — Enumerations — Whether grounds raised to challenge constitutional validity of Act respecting the laicity of the State should be accepted — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 3, 23, 28 and 33 — Charter of human rights and freedoms, ss. 50.1 and 52 — Act respecting the laicity of the State, CQLR, c. L-0.3.

Notes

(Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave)

Language

Floor 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).