ARCTIC OBITER

from which membership in the
conspiracy can be inferred.
~
CRIMINAL LAW: INFORMER
PRIVILEGE
R. v. Named Person B
(Que. S.C., Sept. 17, 2010)(34053)
2013 SCC 9 (February 22, 2013)
Confidentiality an informer was
promised by a first police force
continued when they transferred
him to another force.
~
CRIMINAL LAW:
IMMIGRATION
CONSEQUENCES TO
SENTENCING
R. v. Pham
(Alta. C.A., June 28, 2012)(34897)
2013 SCC 15 (March 14, 2013)
When two possible sentences are
both appropriate as regards the
gravity of an offence and the
responsibility of the offenders, the
most suitable one may be the one
that better contributes to the
offender’s rehabilitation. Collateral
c o n s e q u e n c e s r e l a t e d t o
immigration may be relevant in
tailoring the sentence, but their
significance depends on and has to
be determined in accordance with
the facts of the particular case.
~
CRIMINAL LAW: POLICE
INTERCEPTION OF TEXT
MESSAGES
R. v. TELUS
(Ont. S.C., Mar. 4, 2011)(34252)
2103 SCC 16 (March 27, 2013)
Police require a search warrant to
access text messages.
~
CRIMINAL LAW: TRIAL JUDGE
OPINIONS
R. v. Mailhot
(Que. C.A., May 23, 2012)(34881)
2013 SCC 17 (March 28, 2013)
A new trial in this case is required
because of the effect of the trial
judge’s charge on the fairness of
the trial.
~
HUMAN RIGHTS: HATEFUL
SPEECH
Saskatchewan (Human Rights
Commission) v. Whatcott
(Sask. C.A., Feb. 25, 2010)(33676)
2013 SCC 11(February 27, 2013)
The Saskatchewan Human Rights
Code, which prohibits the
publication or display of any
The Canadian Legal Information Institute
Making Canadian law accessible
for free on the internet.
www.canlii.org
representation “that exposes or
tends to expose to hatred,
ridicules, belittles or otherwise
affronts the dignity of any person
or class of persons on the basis of a
p r o h i b i t e d g r o u n d ” , i s
constitutional.
~
MUNICIPAL LAW:
EXPROPRIATION
Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v.
Ontario (Transportation)
(Ont. C.A., June 2, 2011)(34413)
2013 SCC 13 (March 7, 2013)
The reasonableness of interference
must be determined by balancing
the competing interests, as in all
other cases of private nuisance,
and that balance is appropriately
struck by whether, in all of the
circumstances, the individual
claimant shouldered a greater
share of the burden of construction
than would be reasonable to expect
individuals to bear without
compensation.
~
TORTS: MEDMAL
Ediger v. Johnston
(B.C.C.A., May 30, 2011)(34408)
2013 SCC 18 (April 4, 2013)
The trial judge was correct to find
an obstetrician was negligent in
the circumstances here by failing to
ensure back-up surgical C-section
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 33)
32 ■ MARCH/APRIL 2013 ARCTIC OBITER