| |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
Citation: Redeemer Foundation v. Canada (National Revenue), 2008 SCC 46 |
Date: 20080731 Docket: 31753 |
Between:
Redeemer Foundation
Appellant
and
Minister of National Revenue
Respondent
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
|
Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 29)
Reasons Dissenting in Part: (paras. 30 to 58)
|
McLachlin C.J. and LeBel J. (Fish and Charron JJ. concurring)
Rothstein J. (Binnie and Deschamps JJ. concurring) |
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
______________________________
redeemer foundation v. canada (national revenue)
Redeemer Foundation Appellant
v.
Minister of National Revenue Respondent
Indexed as: Redeemer Foundation v. Canada (National Revenue)
Neutral citation: 2008 SCC 46.
File No.: 31753.
2008: February 28; 2008: July 31.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Taxation — Income tax — Administration and enforcement — Minister of National Revenue’s power to inspect, audit and examine taxpayers’ records — Whether Minister must obtain judicial authorization during course of legitimate audit of registered charity before asking charity to provide information that identifies its donors — Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), ss. 230(2)(a), 231.1(1).
The appellant Foundation, a registered charity, operates a forgivable loan program that finances the education of students at an affiliated college. The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) was concerned that some donations to the program were not valid charitable donations because the donors’ contributions were made solely to finance the education of their own children. CRA served the Foundation with a requirement to record the identity of each donor and the name of the student who received credit for each donation. In a subsequent audit, CRA requested the donor information, which the Foundation provided. CRA advised the Foundation that there might be grounds to revoke its charitable status and to reassess its donors. Notices of reassessment were sent to some donors. The Foundation applied for judicial review of the CRA’s request for donor information. The reviewing judge declared that the request was improper without prior judicial authorization, the donor information should be returned, and the Minister of National Revenue should be prevented from acting upon the information to reassess donors. The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the reviewing judge’s order and dismissed the application for judicial review.
Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008scc48/2008scc48.html
| |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
Citation: Montréal (City) v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse), 2008 SCC 48 |
Date: 20080801 Docket: 31551 |
Between:
City of Montréal (in right of the
Communauté urbaine de Montréal)
Appellant
and
Commission des droits de la personne
et des droits de la jeunesse and S. N
Respondents
‑ and ‑
Attorney General of Quebec, École nationale de police du
Québec and Prisoners’ Rights Committee
Interveners
Official English Translation: Reasons of Deschamps J.
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache,* Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
|
Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 38)
Dissenting Reasons: (paras. 39 to 88)
|
Deschamps J. (McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Abella and Rothstein JJ. concurring)
Charron J. (Binnie J. concurring) |
* Bastarache J. took no part in the judgment.
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
______________________________
montréal v. quebec (cdpdj)
City of Montréal (in right of the
Communauté urbaine de Montréal) Appellant
v.
Commission des droits de la personne
et des droits de la jeunesse and S.N. Respondents
and
Attorney General of Quebec, École nationale de police du
Québec and Prisoners’ Rights Committee Interveners
Indexed as: Montréal (City) v. Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse)
Neutral citation: 2008 SCC 48.
File No.: 31551.
2007: December 5; 2008: August 1.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache,* Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec
Human rights — Right to equality — Discrimination based on criminal record — Pardon — Candidate for employment as police officer rejected at initial stage of selection process because of prior conviction despite having been pardoned — Police force indicating that she did not satisfy “good moral character” criterion imposed by hiring standards provided for in statute and regulation — Whether candidate for employment as police officer enjoys protection of s. 18.2 of Charter of human rights and freedoms against discrimination based on prior conviction that connected with employment — Whether that protection applies to all existing forms of pardon, such as statutory pardon — Whether candidate rejected owing to mere fact of finding of guilt — Whether rejection of candidate justified under s. 20 of Quebec Charter, which provides that requirement of aptitudes and qualifications that necessary for employment is deemed non‑discriminatory — Charter of human rights and freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C‑12, ss. 18.2, 20 — Criminal Records Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑47, s. 6.1.
Source: http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008scc47/2008scc47.html
| |
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
|
Citation: R. v. S.A.C., 2008 SCC 47 |
Date: 20080731 Docket: 32104 |
Between:
S.A.C.
Appellant
and
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
‑ and ‑
Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Manitoba,
Attorney General of Alberta, and Justice for Children and Youth
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
|
Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 49)
|
Deschamps J. (McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. concurring) |
Note: This document is subject to editorial revision before its reproduction in final form in the Canada Supreme Court Reports.
______________________________
r. v. s.a.c.
S.A.C. Appellant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Manitoba,
Attorney General of Alberta, and Justice for Children and Youth Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. S.A.C.
Neutral citation: 2008 SCC 47.
File No.: 32104.
2008: April 17; 2008: July 31.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for nova scotia
Criminal law — Youth — Sentencing — Committal to custody — Proper interpretation of s. 39(1)(c) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act — Discrepancy between English and French versions — Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, s. 39(1)(c).
Criminal law — Youth — Sentencing — Evidence — Requirement to consider a pre‑sentence report before making a sentence in respect of a young person — Whether pre‑sentence report contained sufficient individualized information to allow sentencing court to craft appropriate and meaningful sentence — Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, ss. 39, 40, 42.
Criminal law — Sentencing — Taking of DNA samples — Crown conceding on appeal that sentencing court could not order taking of DNA samples proprio motu — Whether Court of Appeal was correct in remitting matter to sentencing court for reconsideration — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, s. 487.051(1)(b).
