Shuaiqi/CLSum huggingface dataset:
supreme court of canada the supreme court upholds a fine of more than $9 million for a quebec maple syrup thief. the robbery was discovered in july 2012 when the f d ration des producteurs ac ricoles du qu bec (federation) did a routine inventory check at its warehouse in saint-louis-de-blandford and found barrels containing water instead of maple syrup. the federation controls the production of maple syrup in quebec. the quebec provincial police arrested 16 people, including mr. richard vallières. mr. vallières was found guilty of fraud, trafficking and theft. the stolen syrup was worth over $18 million. but during his trial in quebec superior court, he said he sold the syrup for $10 million and made a personal profit of around $1 million. the judge sentenced mr. vallières to eight years in prison and fined him over $9 million. the judge ordered this fine based on section 462.37(3) of the criminal code, which says a fine must be equal to the value of the stolen property when that property cannot be returned to its owner. this is called a 'fine in lieu'. mr. vallières appealed to the court of appeal of quebec. it reduced the fine to around $1 million, which was mr. vallières' profit. the crown then appealed to the supreme court of canada, arguing the court of appeal should not have reduced the fine. the supreme court has sided with the crown. a court cannot limit the amount of a fine to the profit made by an offender. writing for a unanimous court, chief justice wagner said the wording of section 462.37(3) of the criminal code is clear: mr. vallières must pay a fine equal to the value of the stolen syrup. this amounted to more than $9 million (in other words, $10 million for which he sold the syrup minus the amount he owed to the federation under a separate court order). mr. vallières has 10 years to pay this fine or else he must serve six years in prison. given the wording of section 462.37(3), a court does not have the discretion (power) to limit a fine to the profit made. so, the court of appeal was wrong in this case to reduce mr. vallières' fine to $1 million. the chief justice explained that parliament adopted section 462.37(3) for two reasons: not allowing an offender to profit from their crime and discouraging them from repeating the offence. this provision is severe because parliament wanted to send a clear message that 'crime does not pay'. in cases where more than one person had possession or control of the stolen property, a court can divide the value of that property among them in order to avoid the owner getting more money in return than they should. an offender must ask the court to divide the amount, and the court must be able to do so based on the evidence. in this case, the chief justice said mr. vallières had not proven at trial, or even on appeal, that the $10 million should be divided between him and the other thieves. as a result, the trial judge had no choice but to order him to pay the full amount.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules that stock options donated to charities by an employee are employment income under quebec's taxation act. mr. yves des groseillers worked for a company that granted him stock options, which he donated to registered charities. during an audit of his tax returns, the agence du revenu du qu bec (arq) added the value of the donated stock options to his employment income. that meant mr. des groseillers would have to pay more income tax. mr. des groseillers appealed arq's decision to the court of qu bec, which ruled in his favour. it found he received no benefit for donating his stock options, so their value should not be added to his employment income. the arq then appealed to quebec's court of appeal, which sided with the arq and restored the agency's original decision to add the stock options to mr. des groseillers' employment income. mr. des groseillers then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has dismissed the appeal. arq was correct to add the value of the stock options to mr. des groseillers' employment income. in a unanimous ruling, the supreme court said the court of appeal correctly applied sections 50 and 422 of quebec's taxation act. pursuant to section 50 of the act, if an employee transfers stock options received under an employee plan to another person or organization they have no relation to, they are considered to have received a taxable employment benefit equal to the monetary value of those options. under section 422 of the act, such donations are considered to have been made at the fair market value of the stock options at the time of the gift. 'like the court of appeal, we conclude that the [arq] properly assessed mr. des groseillers for the benefit received', the supreme court said. arq was correct to add the value of the stock options to mr. des groseillers' employment income.
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, including muhammad jaffer. mr. jaffer was charged with two offences: (1) telecommunicating with a person he believed was under the age of 18, for the purpose of obtaining sexual services; and (2) communicating to obtain sexual services for consideration from a person under the age of 18. a jury convicted mr. jaffer of both offences but he applied to have the proceedings against him stopped, alleging that he was the victim of police entrapment. mr. jaffer 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. jaffer was not entrapped and dismissed his application. mr. jaffer 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 haniffa 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. jaffer was not entrapped. writing for a unanimous court, justice andromache karakatsanis ruled that mr. jaffer 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 a grandmother should have custody over a child despite the father's closer biological tie. the father and mother were married in 2012 in alberta. they separated less than a year later when the mother moved to prince edward island (pei) the father was unaware the mother was pregnant when she left. shortly after the child was born in 2013, the maternal grandmother went to reside with the mother and child to help support them. when the child was four years old, the mother refused to allow the grandmother further contact with him. the child was then apprehended by the director of child protection, as he was found to be needing protection. he was eventually placed in the grandmother's care. the director subsequently alerted the father of the child's existence. the father and the grandmother applied for permanent custody separately from each other. the hearing judge held it was in the child's best interests for the grandmother to have custody. the father appealed to the court of appeal of pei, which gave him custody. the grandmother then appealed to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has said the grandmother should have custody. the standard of review to be applied by appeal courts in child protection cases writing for a unanimous supreme court, justice sheilah martin said the grandmother should have custody. the court of appeal should have deferred to the hearing judge's decision in this regard, justice martin explained. the most important consideration in a child custody case is the best interests of the child. a judge's ruling on a child custody matter is owed deference when reviewed by an appeal court. an appeal court may only change a ruling if there was a material error, a serious misapprehension of the evidence, or an error in law. the same standard applies in custody cases involving child protection, unless there is legislation to the contrary. nothing in pei's child protection act suggests a different standard. in this case, the supreme court found no error in the hearing judge's assessment of the best interests of the child. the hearing judge based her analysis on an extensive review of the evidence, and was not compelled to decide in favour of the father simply due to a closer biological tie. biological ties carry minimal weight in the assessment of a child's best interests a parent's biological tie is simply one factor among many that may be relevant to a child's best interest, justice martin said. judges are not required to treat biology as a tie-breaker when two prospective custodial applicants are otherwise equal. placing too great an emphasis on a biological tie could lead some judges to give effect to the parent's claim over the child's best interests. parental preferences should not prevail over the child's best interests. 'while biological ties may be relevant in a given case, they will generally carry minimal weight in the assessment of a child's best interests', justice martin wrote.
supreme court of canada the supreme court orders a new trial for an ontario man accused of murder. in the early morning hours of february 4, 2016, peter khill shot and killed jonathan styres, a young man who was breaking into his truck. the vehicle was parked in the driveway of mr. khill's home, in a rural area on the outskirts of hamilton, ontario. before the shooting, mr. khill was awoken by his partner who alerted him to loud noises coming from the driveway next to their bedroom window. looking out the window, mr. khill saw the dash lights of his truck were on, indicating that someone was, or had been, in the truck. at that point, mr. khill retrieved his shotgun, went outside and confronted mr styres moments later, he fired two shots, killing mr. styres. when police arrived on the scene, they arrested mr. khill. he told the arresting officer that he had been a soldier. he also said the intruder had raised his hands to gun height, so he reacted as he did. mr. khill was charged with second degree murder. at trial, he testified that he shot mr. styres in self-defence, believing mr. styres was armed and about to shoot him. mr. khill's training as a former part-time reservist was raised at trial. a jury found mr. khill not guilty and acquitted him. the crown appealed. the ontario court of appeal overturned the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding that the jury was not property instructed on the principles of self-defence. mr. khill appealed that decision to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has dismissed mr. khill's appeal and has ordered a new trial. the trial judge should have instructed the jury on self-defence and on mr. khill's role in the incident. writing for the majority, justice martin said the jury received no instructions from the trial judge on how mr. khill's role in the incident should inform its assessment of the reasonableness of his conduct. she said this was an error that had an important effect on the verdict. justice martin explained that a 'person's role in the incident' refers to 'the person's conduct during the course of the incident, from beginning to end, that is relevant to whether the ultimate act was reasonable in the circumstances.' in this case, if the jury had been properly instructed, it may have arrived at a different conclusion. she said the jury may have found, for example, that mr. khill's conduct increased the risk of a fatal confrontation with mr. styres outside the home. they may also have assessed mr. khill's decision to advance into the darkness against other alternatives he could have taken, such as calling 911, shouting from the window or turning on the lights. those actions may have prevented the mistaken belief that mr. styres was armed and avoided the need to use deadly force. as a result, the majority concluded that a new trial is necessary to ensure the jury is appropriately instructed on the principles of self-defence and the significance of mr. khill's role in the incident.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules loblaw financial holdings inc. can benefit from a canadian tax exception involving a bank it owns in barbados. this is a tax case involving loblaw financial holdings inc. (loblaw financial), a canadian company. loblaw financial is owned by the loblaw group, which also owns grocery stores. in 1992, loblaw financial opened a bank in barbados called glenhuron bank limited (glenhuron). glenhuron did corporate banking, meaning it managed the money of various companies. between 1992 and 2000, both the loblaw group and loblaw financial invested money in glenhuron. in 2013, however, the loblaw group closed glenhuron. in its canadian tax returns for the years 2001 to 2005, 2008, and 2010, loblaw financial did not include the money made by glenhuron, claiming the revenue was exempt from the income tax act. the law says canadian companies must pay taxes on money made by their foreign affiliates, meaning companies they own abroad. that money is called 'foreign accrual property income' (fapi). however, a bank can get a tax exception if it was doing business mainly with companies that are not related to it. this is known as the 'arm's length requirement'. the minister of national revenue of canada denied the tax exception, so loblaw financial appealed to the tax court of canada. at tax court, the minister argued the exception did not apply and the tax court agreed. loblaw financial appealed that decision to the federal court of appeal, which sided with loblaw financial and said the exemption did in fact apply. the minister then turned to the supreme court of canada. the supreme court has sided with loblaw financial: the tax exception did apply, so loblaw financial did not have to pay taxes on the money made by glenhuron. the arm's length requirement was met. writing for the supreme court, justice côté explained 'the fapi regime is one of the most complicated statutory regimes in canadian law'. but she said the question in this appeal is simple. is a company 'doing business' with a foreign affiliate when it manages and gives money to it? she said the answer is no. when the arm's length requirement in the income tax act is read in its grammatical and ordinary sense, it is clear money and management to an affiliate is not included in 'doing business'. loblaw financial managed and gave money to glenhuron, but it was not doing business with it. rather, as a corporate bank, glenhuron was doing business with other companies not related to it. so, the arm's length requirement was met. as a result, the tax exception applied, and loblaw financial did not have to pay taxes on the money made by glenhuron for the years in question.
supreme court of canada the supreme court rules that the sealing orders on the estate files of toronto couple barry and honey sherman were unjustified. today's decision means the media may access the files that establish who would inherit the money and assets of the couple who police say were murdered in december 2017. the sherman estate had sought sealing orders to block public access to estate files. it wanted the individuals concerned to be spared from further intrusion into their privacy and protected from what they allege was a risk to their safety. the sealing orders were initially granted, but challenged by a journalist and the toronto star newspaper. they said the sealing orders violated their constitutional rights of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, as well as the principle that courts should be open to the public. the ontario superior court of justice upheld the sealing orders. the journalist and the toronto star appealed the decision to the ontario court of appeal, which overturned that decision and set aside the sealing orders. the open court principle as a general rule, court proceedings are open and public, including estate files. this is known as the open court principle, and is protected by the constitutional right to freedom of expression. it is an essential feature of our democracy. the supreme court said there is a strong presumption in favour of open courts. it noted that this 'allows for public scrutiny which can be the source of inconvenience and even embarrassment to those who feel that their engagement in the justice system brings intrusion into their private lives. but this discomfort is not, as a general matter, enough to overturn the strong presumption that the public can attend hearings and that court files can be consulted and reported upon by the free press.' was the dignity or safety of the individuals at risk? the supreme court noted that privacy concerns can justify a sealing order if the dignity of the individuals in question is at risk. it said the sherman estate had to prove that the information in the court file is 'sufficiently sensitive such that it can be said to strike at the biographical core of the individual and, in the broader circumstances, that there is a serious risk that, without an exceptional order, the affected individual will suffer an affront to their dignity'. the court found that the information in the court fileswas not ofsuch a highly sensitive nature. it said the sherman estatefailed to show how lifting the sealing orders would affect the dignity of the individuals. it also said the safety of the individuals was not at serious risk. the supreme court concluded that the sealing orders were properly set aside by the court of appeal.