Shuaiqi/CLSum huggingface dataset:
supreme court of canada the supreme court decides canada north group can pay expenses necessary to its restructuring process before money owed to the canada revenue agency. the companies' creditors arrangement act is a law to help businesses avoid bankruptcy when a company has more than $5 million in debt that it cannot afford to repay. the process is called restructuring. this could include giving a company more time to pay its debt, reducing its interest costs or permitting it to borrow money to repay the debt. companies that restructure must hire experts such as interim lenders, monitors and lawyers. if there is not enough money to pay everyone, a court will decide who gets paid first. on july 5, 2017, an alberta court ordered canada north group, an alberta company that provides remote workforce accommodations, to pay its restructuring experts first. as a result, those expenses became 'super priority' charges. this meant the experts would be paid before all other debts, including payroll deductions and gst owed to the federal government (crown). however, the crown objected, asking that it be paid before everyone else. when the court refused to change the order, the crown turned to the alberta court of appeal, which dismissed its appeal. the federal government asked the supreme court of canada to consider the issue. even though there was enough money to pay everyone in this case, the court decided to hear it to determine the law. 'super priority' for restructuring-related expenses a majority of the judges dismissed the crown's appeal. they said a court supervising a restructuring process has the authority to order that 'super priority' charges be paid first, even before paying the crown the money it is owed. this is because the companies' creditors arrangement act gives the court a broad discretionary power to make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances. for experts to put themselves at financial risk in order to restructure a company, only to discover later that other creditors must be paid first, would not be fair. four judges disagreed, saying that the money owed to the crown takes priority over all other debt or expenses, including the money owed to the restructuring experts.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules police did not violate an ontario man's privacy when they searched his home. on june 1, 2017, police in oakville, ontario responded to a report about a man hitting a woman in a car. the man was later identified as matthew stairs. police found the car parked in the driveway with no one inside, so they knocked on the front door of the house. when no one answered, the officers entered through a side door. inside, they found a woman with a bruised face. they found and arrested mr. stairs in the basement. police then looked around the basement living room and found drugs (methamphetamine). mr. stairs was charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and with assault and breach of probation. at trial, mr. stairs argued that police were not allowed to search his home and therefore that the drug evidence could not be used against him. he invoked section 8 of the charter, which protects people from 'unreasonable search or seizure'. police testified they searched the basement living room to address their safety concerns. mr. stairs was convicted of all charges. he appealed his drug conviction to ontario's court of appeal, which found the police search had not violated his section 8 charter right. he then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has dismissed the appeal. the search did not violate mr. stairs' section 8 charter right. writing for a majority of the judges of the supreme court, justices moldaver and jamal said the search of the basement living room did not violate mr. stairs' section 8 charter right. police had reason to suspect a safety risk, and that that their concerns would be addressed by a quick scan of the room. the judges said the search of the basement living room complied with section 8 of the charter because: (1) mr. stairs' arrest was lawful; (2) the search was related to his arrest, was of the surrounding area only and was conducted for safety reasons; and (3) the search accounted for the increased privacy interests in a home. as a result, the drug evidence could be admitted at trial. 'a fundamental and longstanding principle of a free society is that a person's home is their castle', the judges wrote. they added that this privacy interest must be balanced with valid law enforcement objectives. in other words, police can search a home for safety reasons if the search is conducted in a reasonable manner and accounts for the greater expectation of privacy in a person's home.
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 erhard haniffa. mr. haniffa 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 trial was held and mr. haniffa was convicted of all three offences but he applied to have the proceedings against him stopped, alleging that he was the victim of police entrapment. mr. haniffa 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. haniffa was not entrapped and dismissed his application. mr. haniffa 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 dare, 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. haniffa was not entrapped. writing for a unanimous court, justice andromache karakatsanis ruled that mr. haniffa 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' and the offences police provided the opportunity to commit 'were rationally connected and proportionate' to the offences they suspected were occurring in that space.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules that the city of nelson can be held responsible for injuries caused by its snow clearing decisions. after a heavy snowfall in january 2015, snow clearing crews for the city of nelson in british columbia started plowing the streets. not long after, ms. taryn joy marchi parked her car on baker street in the downtown area. city crews had already plowed the street, but they had created a snowbank along the curb of the sidewalk. ms. marchi decided to walk over the snowbank to get from her car to the sidewalk and seriously injured her leg. she sued the city for negligence. the city of nelson argued that it should not have to pay any damages to ms. marchi, because snow clearing decisions are 'core policy decisions' that are immune from negligence claims. core policy decisions are based on public policy considerations, such as economic, social and political factors. they must be rational and not taken in bad faith. at trial, the judge agreed with the city that its snow clearing decision was a core policy decision and the city did not have to pay any damages to ms. marchi. she appealed to the province's court of appeal, which disagreed with the trial judge and ordered a new trial. the city of nelson appealed that decision to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has agreed with the court of appeal. the city can be held responsible for injuries caused by its snow clearing decisions. operational decisions are not policy decisions. writing for a unanimous court, justices karakatsanis and martin agreed that core policy decisions are immune from negligence claims. however, they pointed out that operational decisions to carry out a policy are not policy decisions. they said, 'the fact that the word ‘policy' is found in a written document' does not settle the question. in analyzing the city's snow clearing decision in this case, the court concluded that the decision was not a core policy decision. rather, the decision was operational and not immune from a negligence claim. the judges said the city owed ms. marchi a 'duty of care' and that a new trial is required. the new trial would assess if the city breached that duty of care and, as a result, whether it should pay damages to ms. marchi. what is a 'duty of care'? a person making a negligence claim must prove four things in court: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, the cause and any damages. a duty of care means the other person or organization was required to do, or avoid doing, something that could likely cause harm.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules that $30 million award to lac seul first nation was not enough compensation for flooded reserve land. part of lac seul first nation (lsfn)'s reserve land in northern ontario was flooded for a hydroelectricity project that began in the 1920s the project involved the governments of canada, manitoba and ontario. the project went ahead without the consent of the lsfn and without compensation. the flooding caused major damage. years later, the lsfn brought a claim for that damage. the federal court ordered the government of canada to pay the lsfn $30 million in compensation. the judge considered the value of the land in the 1920s but without the added value for the hydroelectricity project. the lsfn appealed to the federal court of appeal. the lsfn said that amount did not sufficiently compensate them for the loss of the flooded land. the federal court of appeal disagreed. but the supreme court of canada agreed. it said $30 million did not sufficiently compensate the lsfn. it therefore allowed the appeal. damage to reserve land due to the hydroelectricity project the supreme court noted that the hydroelectricity project caused major damage to the lsfn reserve land. a majority of the judges wrote that approximately '17% of the lsfn reserve 11,304 acres or approximately 4,575 hectares is now permanently flooded. homes were destroyed, as were wild rice fields, gardens, haylands, and gravesites. fishing, hunting, and trapping were all impacted. the community was separated because one part of the reserve became an island. and, despite the sacrifices suffered by the community to make the hydroelectricity project possible, the reserve was not provided with electricity until the 1980s.' assessment of equitable compensation the majority of judges said the compensation amount should have included the added value for the hydroelectricity project. they explained that the compensation owed by canada to the lsfn should be the amount that a properly negotiated deal by canada would have earned them. this meant a deal based on the value of the land to those who were wanting to use it, which in this case was the hydroelectricity project. the majority agreed with the lsfn that $30 million was not enough to include that project and ordered that the federal court reassess the amount. canada's 'fiduciary duty' towards indigenous peoples the majority explained that canada's specific duty towards indigenous peoples is called a 'fiduciary duty'. fiduciary duty means that canada is obliged to act in the best interest of indigenous peoples, especially as concerns reserve land. if that land is to be taken away or damaged, as it was in this case, canada must get the best price for the land on their behalf.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules a luxembourg company can benefit from a canadian tax exemption due to an existing tax treaty. an american oil and gas company created a luxembourg subsidiary called alta luxembourg, which had its own subsidiary in canada called alta canada. a subsidiary is a company that is owned by another company. in 2013, alta luxembourg sold its shares in alta canada and made more than $380 million in profit. alta luxembourg paid taxes on the profit to luxembourg tax authorities. in its canadian tax return, alta luxembourg claimed a tax exemption on the basis that the profit was not 'taxable income earned in canada'. it supported its claim by relying on the tax treatybetween canada and luxembourg. the agreementexempts luxembourg companies who profit from selling shares in canada from paying taxes as long as the shares relate to buildings and lands in canada where the company conducts business. the minister of national revenue of canada denied the exemption and alta luxembourg appealed to the tax court of canada. before the tax court, the minister argued that alta luxembourg could not quality for the exemption because alta canada did not do business on the property. the minister also said that the only reason alta luxembourg existed was to sell the shares without having to pay taxes to canadian tax authorities. lawyers for the minister said that was abusive tax avoidance. the tax court sided with alta luxembourg. the minister appealed that decision to the federal court of appeal. it also sided with alta luxembourg, finding no abusive tax avoidance. the minister then turned to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has dismissed the appeal. there was no abusive tax avoidance. writing for the majority, justice côté said the minister had not proven abusive tax avoidance. she said canada had agreed to include exemptions for buildings and lands in the tax treaty to encourage investments by luxembourg residents and companies. alta luxembourg made such an investment. as a result, it can claim a tax exemption and the anti-avoidance provisions of the canadian income tax act cannot be used to deny the exemption.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules children can relocate within british columbia to live with their mother. this is a child custody case. the mother and father met in 2011. soon after, the mother moved to kelowna, where the father was living. they got married, bought a house and had two boys. when their relationship ended in 2018, the mother took the children to her parents' home in telkwa, a 10-hour drive from kelowna. the children split their time between telkwa and kelowna before the parents agreed the children should remain in kelowna with the father until the mother returned there, although she never did return. instead, she asked the court to relocate the children to telkwa. if not, she said she was willing to move to kelowna, but the father was unwilling to move to telkwa. at trial, the judge said the children could move to telkwa with the mother for two reasons: the bitter relationship between the parents affected the children; and the father might not be able to afford to stay in the kelowna home. the father then appealed to british columbia's court of appeal, asking to present additional evidence about his financial situation. the court of appeal sided with the father. it allowed the new evidence, saying it affected the trial judge's finding about the father's finances. as a result, the relocation could no longer be justified. the mother then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has sided with the mother. the new evidence should not have been allowed on appeal. writing for a majority of the judges of the supreme court, justice andromache karakatsanis said the children can move to telkwa with their mother. the majority said the court of appeal was wrong to apply a different test than that set out by the supreme court in palmer v the queen when deciding whether the father could present new evidence. as the majority explained, this test applies to evidence even at the appeal stage. according to the test, four criteria must be met for the evidence to be allowed: (1) despite the party's due diligence, the evidence could not have been presented at trial; (2) the evidence is relevant; (3) it is credible; and (4) it could have affected the result at trial. in this case, the test was not met because the evidence about the father's finances could have been presented at trial if he had taken all reasonable steps to obtain it in time. the move is in the children's best interests. the majority said there was no reason for the court of appeal to change the trial judge's decision. the move was in the children's best interests. there was a significant risk that the bitter relationship between the parents would affect the children if they stayed in kelowna. also, the mother needed her parents' help to care for the children, and they are in telkwa. in such cases, the question is 'whether relocation is in the best interests of the child, having regard to child's physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being', the majority said. the analysis is highly fact-specific and discretionary, and the possibility for change on appeal is very narrow.
supreme court of canada the supreme court upholds sentences for two men convicted of wholesale drug trafficking in alberta. two convicted drug dealers appealed to the supreme court of canada after the alberta court of appeal increased their prison sentences. patrick douglas felix and cameron o'lynn parranto pleaded guilty to several offences, including the trafficking of wholesale fentanyl. wholesale trafficking means selling drugs in large quantities for others to then resell them. mr. felix worked in fort mcmurray and his offences dated from 2015, whereas mr. parranto worked in edmonton and his offences dated from 2016. at trial mr. felix was sentenced to seven years in prison and mr. parranto was sentenced to 11 years. unsatisfied with those sentences, the crown appealed to alberta's court of appeal, which heard the two cases together. in its ruling, the court of appeal set a 'starting point' sentence of nine years for wholesale fentanyl trafficking and increased mr. felix's sentence to 10 years and mr. parranto's to 14 years. a starting point gives the courts a place to start when deciding an appropriate sentence. both men then appealed their longer sentences to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has dismissed the appeals. a majority of the judges found the sentences at trial were 'demonstrably unfit', meaning the sentences were clearly unreasonable, and that the court of appeal's ruling was appropriate. appeal courts may set 'starting points' to help lower courts decide on appropriate sentences. the supreme court has confirmed that appeal courts may set starting points to help lower courts decide appropriate sentences. the majority explained that sentencing is, 'one of the most delicate stages of the criminal justice process'. it remains a discretionary exercise that requires judges to consider and balance many factors. the goal in every case is a fair, fit and principled sentence. proportionality is the most important principle in reaching this goal. parity and individualization are secondary principles. the majority wrote, 'the question is always whether the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the unique circumstances of each case.' trial courts are best positioned to craft a fit sentence for the offenders before them. the majority noted that appellate courts play two roles. they consider the fitness of a sentence and promote stability in the development of the law, while providing guidance to lower courts to ensure trial judges apply the law consistently. courts of appeal are well positioned to provide such guidance, the judges wrote, because of their appreciation of overall sentencing practices, patterns and problems in their jurisdiction. even so, the majority said appeal courts must give a high level of deference to trial court sentencing decisions. deviating from a sentencing range or starting point alone does not justify the intervention of appeal courts. it is only when a sentence is demonstrably unfit or the sentencing judge made a mistake that an appeal court may vary the sentence.
supreme court of canada the supreme court restores the 2017 convictions of an individual who was found guilty of multiple sex offences against children. in 2012, jd was charged with 18 counts of sexual offences involving young people committed between 1974 and 1993 in quebec. two of the complainants were his children (cd and sd) the trial by judge alone (without a jury) started in 2016. jd's daughter (cd) testified over two days. soon after, the judge fell ill and the trial was postponed. section 669.2(3) of the criminal code sets out what should happen if a judge cannot continue a trial but has not yet rendered a verdict. in this case, a new trial was started before another judge. at the new trial in 2017, the parties agreed to file the original transcript of c.d's testimony so that she would not have to testify again. the new judge also heard testimony from the other complainants and found jd guilty on nine counts of sexual offences. jd appealed to quebec's court of appeal, which ordered a new trial on the counts concerning his two children. the court said the trial judge should have conducted a two-part test before permitting cd's initial testimony to be filed as evidence at the new trial. the judges said the test would have ensured that the accused truly agreed with the decision to file the testimony and that the filing would not affect the fairness of the trial. the crown then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has sided with the crown. a transcript of witness testimony given at a first trial can be filed as evidence in a second trial if the parties agree. writing for a unanimous court, justice suzanne côté said the law does not require the new judge to conduct a test before allowing a transcript of witness testimony given at a first trial to be filed as evidence at a second trial, if the parties agree. justice côté said section 669.2(3) of the criminal code is clear. where a trial is by judge alone, the new judge must begin the trial again as if no evidence had been taken, and cannot require the parties to file evidence from the first trial. instead, both the prosecution and the defence can present their evidence as they see fit. for example, they may choose, as they did in this case, to file a transcript of previous testimony. this is a strategic decision like choosing to cross-examine a witness, and the judge should not intervene. 'all that is needed is that the transcript be duly filed and that the parties consent to it being filed', justice côté wrote. in this case, the new judge did not require the parties to file the transcript from the first trial. rather, the parties agreed between themselves to file it. there was no reason for the judge to question the accused's consent in this regard. as a result, the second trial was fair.