Shuaiqi/CLSum huggingface dataset:
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules an ontario law that cut the number of toronto city councillors during the 2018 municipal election was constitutional. on may 1, 2018, a municipal election campaign started in the city of toronto. candidate nominations were due by july 27, 2018. over 500 people registered as candidates. on the day nominations closed, the government of ontario announced its intention to introduce a law to reduce the number of electoral wards from 47 to 25. the law, known as the better local government act, 2018, came into force on august 14, 2018. soon after, the city challenged the law in court. it argued the law violated the freedom of expression of candidates and voters, contrary to section 2(b) of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. it also argued the law violated certain unwritten constitutional principles, such as democracy. the ontario superior court agreed with the city. the province of ontario appealed that decision. in the meantime, the election was held on october 22, 2018, with 25 wards only. later, the court of appeal ruled in favour of the province. the city then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has agreed with the province. the law did not violate the freedom of expression of candidates and voters. writing for the majority, chief justice wagner and justice brown said the lawdid not stop candidates from expressing themselves: 'the candidates and their supporters had 69 days longer than most federal and provincial election campaigns to re-orient their messages and freely express themselves according to the new ward structure'. the judges said the law did not restrict what candidates could say or do. they noted many candidates had successful campaigns, raised substantial amounts of money and won lots of votes. they said this would not have been possible if candidates had been prevented from meaningful expression. the majority recognized that some of the candidates' messages, made before the number of wards was reduced, may have lost their relevance. however, they said section 2(b) of the charter does not guarantee the effectiveness or relevance of messages or campaign materials. unwritten constitutional principles cannot invalidate a law. the majority said unwritten constitutional principles, such as democracy, can be used to understand and interpret the constitution, but these principles cannot be used to invalidate laws. the authority of provinces over municipalities was not in dispute. section 92(8) of the constitution allows provinces to pass laws affecting municipalities. that means the province could change the number of wards at any time without consulting the city beforehand. this authority was not in dispute in this case.
supreme court of canada the supreme court finds no abuse of process during lengthy disciplinary proceedings against a saskatchewan lawyer. mr. peter v abrametz is a member of the law society of saskatchewan and has practiced law in prince albert for 49 years. in 2012, the law society audited mr. abrametz's financial records, found irregularities and began disciplinary proceedings against him. those irregularities included making high-interest loans to vulnerable clients and issuing cheques to a fictitious person before endorsing and cashing them. in 2013, the law society notified mr. abrametz that he would be suspended temporarily. however, mr. abrametz was allowed to continue practicing, subject to certain conditions. they included that mr. abrametz had to retain a lawyer to supervise his practice and its financial accounts, including withdrawals. he was also barred from accepting, endorsing and cashing cheques. the law society served mr. abrametz a second notice in 2014, but again he was allowed to continue to practice under similar conditions. a year later, the law society issued a formal complaint against mr. abrametz and appointed a hearing committee. it wasn't until 2018 that the law society found him guilty of four charges of conduct unbecoming a lawyer. it disbarred him with no chance at applying to rejoin the law society for almost two years. during the disciplinary proceedings, mr. abrametz argued that the law society took too long to investigate and decide his case. he said it amounted to an abuse of process. the law society's hearing committee dismissed that argument but the court of appeal for saskatchewan agreed with mr. abrametz. the law society then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has agreed with the law society. there was no abuse of process. writing for the majority of supreme court judges, justice malcolm rowe said there is no basis to set aside the hearing committee's finding that there was no abuse of process. 'the court of appeal departed from its proper role when it substituted its own findings of fact.' the test to determine whether delays amount to an abuse of process was set out in an earlier supreme court case. it has three steps. first, the delay must be unreasonable. this is determined by the context, including the nature and purpose of the proceedings, the length and causes of the delay and the complexity of the facts and issues in the case. second, the delay must have caused the person harm. examples include psychological or reputational harm, disruption to family life and loss of work. when these two requirements are met, courts must conduct a final test to determine if there was an abuse of process. this test is met when the delay is manifestly unfair to a party or in some other way brings the administration of justice into disrepute. in this case, mr. abrametz has not shown that the hearing committee was wrong in concluding that the delay was long but that it was not inordinate and that there was no significant prejudice to mr. abrametz. therefore, the test was not met and the court of appeal should not have set aside the hearing committee's conclusions.
supreme court of canada religious groups don't need to have the same fair procedures as public bodies, the supreme court has ruled. also, courts can't interfere with their decisions on purely religious questions. the highwood congregation of jehovah's witnesses is a religious group with about a hundred members in calgary. to become a member, a person must be baptized and show that s/he understands the religious teachings and lives according to the community's rules. anyone who doesn't follow the rules will be urged to repent (apologize). if the behaviour continues, a committee of at least three elders can decide to expel or 'disfellowship' the member. the congregation calls this committee a 'judicial committee.' randy wall became a member in 1980. in 2014, the judicial committee disfellowshipped him for sinning and not fully repenting. the decision was confirmed by an appeal committee and by the watch tower bible and tract society of canada, the head office of jehovah's witnesses in this country. mr. wall asked the alberta court of queen's bench to review the decision. 'judicial review' is when courts look at tribunals' decisions to make sure they are proper. courts can only judicially review the decisions of public bodies (set up by the government and acting on its behalf), not private ones. when making decisions, public tribunals must treat everyone fairly and make decisions without bias. this is what is meant by 'procedural fairness.' mr. wall argued that the judicial committee acted unfairly. he said that the decision caused him to lose money because jehovah's witness clients avoided his real estate business. the lower courts first had to decide whether they had any power (or legal authority) to review the judicial committee's disfellowship decision. they decided they did, even though the judicial committee was not a public decision-maker. they decided this due to the financial impact on mr. wall and because the procedure may not have been fair. writing for a unanimous supreme court, justice malcolm rowe said this was wrong. the courts did not have the power to review the disfellowship decision of a private, religious organization. mr. wall didn't have a right to the congregation members' business. he also didn't have a right to membership in the congregation that courts could enforce, like a contract. justice rowe confirmed that courts can only review the decisions of public decision-makers and that private decision-makers don't have to follow fair procedures unless an enforceable legal right is at stake. he also confirmed that disagreements about religious principles are 'non-justiciable' that is, not appropriate for courts of law to get involved in. this decision confirmed that religious groups can decide their own membership and rules. courts cannot interfere with their decisions, except when needed to resolve an underlying, 'justiciable' legal dispute.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules that police violated a quebec man's right to a lawyer when he was arrested for murder. patrick dussault was arrested by police in gatineau, quebec, in august 2013 and charged with murder and arson. the police informed him of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms (charter). section 10(b) provides that 'everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right'. at the police station, mr. dussault spoke to a lawyer on the phone who explained the charges against him and his right to remain silent. when the lawyer had the impression that mr. dussault did not understand, he offered to come to the station and to continue the conversation in person. mr. dussault agreed and the police approved the lawyer's visit. in the meantime, the lawyer told mr. dussault not to speak to anyone until he arrived at the station. he also asked the police to suspend their investigation until he was present. yet when the lawyer arrived, the police did not allow him to see mr. dussault. instead, they told mr. dussault the lawyer was not at the station. the police proceeded to interrogate mr. dussault. the accused then made an incriminating statement that was later used against him in court. mr. dussault pleaded guilty to the arson charge and a jury trial was held to decide the murder charge. at trial, mr. dussault asked the judge to exclude the incriminating statement from the evidence. he argued that it violated his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the charter. the trial judge disagreed and admitted the statement. the jury eventually convicted mr. dussault of murder. he then appealed to quebec's court of appeal. the court of appeal found that police had violated mr. dussault's section 10(b) charter right and ordered a new murder trial. the crown then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has dismissed the appeal. mr. dussault's section 10(b) charter right was violated. writing for a unanimous court, justice michael moldaver said police failed to provide mr. dussault with a further opportunity to speak with his lawyer before they interrogated him. as a result, his section 10(b) charter right was violated. an initial conversation between the accused and a lawyer normally satisfies the right to counsel. but if the police cause the accused to doubt the legal advice received or the trustworthiness of the lawyer who provided it, the police must provide the accused another opportunity to speak with a lawyer. in this case, the supreme court found that the police caused mr. dussault to doubt his lawyer's advice. it said they led mr. dussault to believe that: (1) an in-person meeting would happen when his lawyer arrived at the station; and (2) his lawyer had not come to the station. this 'was one of those rare cases in which the police were obligated to provide the accused with a second opportunity to consult counsel', wrote justice moldaver.
supreme court of canada for the first time, the supreme court has found a pay equity law unconstitutional because it was discriminatory. in a 6-3 decision, justice rosalie silberman abella, writing for the majority, dismissed an appeal by the government of quebec. to tackle the problem of wage discrimination against women workers, quebec passed a law in 1996 forcing employers with 10 or more employees to give equal pay for work of equal value. ten years later, less than half of employers had complied. less than two-thirds had even started on a plan. in 2009, quebec changed the law to require employers to review their progress on pay equity every five years through audits. if the audits showed women were not being paid fairly, they could still only get pay equity every five years, with no back pay for unfair wages in between. some unions challenged the new law in court. they said that making pay equity available only every five years was discriminatory. the quebec courts agreed that the law breached women's equality rights under section 15 of the canadian charter of rights and freedoms. justice abella agreed that the law violated women's equality rights. pay equity is based on the idea that stereotypes about the role of women in society lead to 'women's work' being valued and paid less than 'men's work.' pay equity laws require employers to identify jobs done mostly by women, and compare their salaries to the salaries for jobs done mostly by men. where equal pay is not being given for work of equal value, employers have pay their women employees to close the gap. by restricting pay equity to every five years, the law let employers off the hook. the law continued the disadvantage women already suffered in the workforce. this breach of women's equality rights was not constitutionally justified. it continued to punish women financially for their employers' failures. five judges agreed with justice abella. justices suzanne côté , russell brown, and malcolm rowe disagreed. they said quebec's law did not breach women's equality rights. they noted that charter rights are 'negative rights,' meaning that governments do not have to adopt particular laws but if they do, those laws must comply with the charter. quebec decided to adopt a pay equity law, and when it saw that the original scheme was not working, it chose to replace it with one that would better achieve equal pay for women. in practice, the changes benefitted women employees and brought them closer to real pay equity. these judges said that the choice of how to improve quebec's pay equity laws should be left to quebeckers' elected representatives, not the court. they also noted that back pay was available for unfair wages in between audits. this case was decided on the same day as centrale des syndicats du qu bec v quebec (attorney general) which upheld other parts of quebec's pay equity laws.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules that an online police investigation targeting people searching for sex with children was not entrapment. 'project raphael' was an online investigation conducted by the york regional police in ontario between 2014 and 2017. it targeted people searching online who wanted to pay to have sex with girls and boys. it involved police placing fake advertisements on the escort sub-section of a website called backpagecom people who engaged with these ads were led to text message conversations between a supposed 18-year-old sex worker, who was actually an undercover police officer. once the prospective client and the undercover officer agreed to a sexual transaction, the officer would then reveal that they were too young for sex work. every client who agreed to continue with the transaction and showed up to the designated hotel room, was arrested. project raphael led to the arrest of 104 men, including temitope dare. mr. dare was charged with three offences: (1) telecommunicating with a person he believed was under the age of 18, for the purpose of obtaining sexual services; (2) telecommunicating with a person he believed was under the age of 16, for the purpose of inviting sexual touching; and (3) communicating to obtain sexual services for consideration from a person under the age of 18. a jury convicted mr. dare of all three offences but he applied to have the proceedings against him stopped, alleging that he was the victim of police entrapment. mr. dare argued that officers had offered him the opportunity to commit a crime. to avoid an operation being considered entrapment, a police investigation must be a 'bona fide inquiry'. in this case, it meant that police must have had reasonable suspicions that a crime was being committed in the escorts section of the backpage.com website. having considered the entrapment test, the judge found that mr. dare was not entrapped and dismissed his application. mr. dare appealed to ontario's court of appeal, which dismissed his appeal. he then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has dismissed the appeal. the supreme court heard this case together with r v ramelson, r v jaffer and r v haniffa, and the judgments are being rendered at the same time. those cases also involved individuals claiming they were entrapped as a result of project raphael. their appeals have also been dismissed. mr. dare was not entrapped. writing for a unanimous court, justice andromache karakatsanis ruled that mr. dare was not entrapped, for the reasons set out in r v ramelson. in that case, she had concluded that project raphael was a bona fide inquiry because 'police had reasonable suspicion in a space defined with sufficient precision'.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules that companies cannot undo transactions that later cause them unintended taxes. this is a case involving two companies, rite-way metals ltd. and harvard industries ltd., which were wanting to avoid paying taxes on some of their assets. the companies followed guidelines published by the canada revenue agency (cra). according to these guidelines, section 75(2) of the income tax act allowed companies to avoid taxes on dividends if paid to a family trust. a dividend is a part of the profit a company pays to its shareholders. a family trust is a legal entity created to hold assets. once assets are transferred into the trust, they are no longer the property of the person who transferred them. instead, they belong to the trust, which is then administered for the benefit of the trustees (or beneficiaries), who are usually members of the relevant family. in this case, the trusts were for the collins and cochran families. the trusts were created in 2008. a few years later, in an unrelated case, the tax court of canada issued a decision with a different interpretation of section 75(2). the effect of the ruling was that family trusts owe taxes on any such dividends. the collins and cochran family trusts applied to the supreme court of british columbia to cancel the transactions that led to the dividends. british columbia's supreme court agreed to do so. the court of appeal dismissed the appeal by the attorney general of canada on behalf of the cra. the attorney general then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has agreed with cra's interpretation of the law. the transactions cannot be cancelled. writing for the majority of supreme court judges, justice russell brown said principles of equity and tax law prevent the companies from reversing their transactions. 'taxpayers should be taxed based on what they actually agreed to do and did, and not on what they could have done or later wished they had done,' justice brown wrote. a court may grant relief to parties only when it would be unfair to enforce transactions. the judges wrote there is nothing unfair about the ordinary application of tax laws to transactions freely undertaken. if any changes are required, it would be up to parliament to make them, not the courts, the majority noted. retroactive tax planning is not allowed. the supreme court has previously stated that retroactive tax planning is not allowed. this means people cannot later change their tax arrangements to prevent any unintended negative consequences. although taxpayers can arrange their finances as they see fit to reduce their taxes, their planning may have the opposite effect. if so, they must bear that responsibility.