• Ross Barros v. Her Majesty the Queen: The private investigator from Alberta is appealing his obstruction of justice and extortion charges for trying to identify an informant outside of court who helped police lay drug and gun charges against Barros’s client. To be heard on Jan. 25.
• Bernard Gerardus, Maria Berendsen et. al v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario: A farming family is taking the Ontario government to court for dumping waste asphalt on an area that, 20 years later, the family claims contaminated drinking water for their cows, and for which the provincial government claims it is not responsible. To be heard on Jan. 28.
• Robert Katigbak v. Her Majesty the Queen: Mr. Katigbak was convicted on child pornography charges, but he claims he kept over 650 photos and videos of child pornography — some depicting actual abuse — on the basis of “artistic merit” because they were background information for an art gallery exhibit. To be heard on Feb. 21.
• Richard C. Breeden, et al. v. Conrad Black: The case raises the issue of jurisdiction when it comes to Internet defamation. Lord Black claims he was libelled online and his reputation was subsequently damaged in Ontario, which is where he has brought forward his lawsuit. To be heard on March 22.
• Gilles Doré v. Pierre Bernard and Barreau du Quebec: Mr. Doré was disbarred for 21 days after he wrote a strongly-worded letter to a case judge — which effectively translates into Dore calling him arrogant, hateful, mean and an “odious being” — but said it was a personal, not professional, opinion. How does the code of ethics limit what a lawyer can do? To be heard Jan. 26.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Social+costs+smoking+busy+Supreme+Court+calendar/4087748/story.html#ixzz1AtEJdXt2
