Law Times

PAGE 14 CaseLawLaw SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Charter Of Rights SEARCH AND SEIZURE Crown laid sufficient evidentiary foundation to justify unannounced entry Accused convicted of possession of cocaine for purpose of traf- fi cking after police seized cocaine from residence. Police suspecting accused's residence being used in cocaine traffi cking operation in- volving suspected violent gang members. Police executing search warrant at accused's residence us- ing unannounced, violent entry. Crown asserting unannounced entry necessary to protect safety of police, public and to prevent destruction of evidence. Police having learned accused or other occupants had no criminal re- cords or violent history. Police not knowing who was in resi- dence at time search executed. Offi cers entering residence not having copy of search warrant with them. Trial judge convict- ing accused of possession of co- caine for purpose of traffi cking after dismissing s. 8 Charter ap- plication based on unreasonable manner of search. Court of Ap- peal upholding trial judge's deci- sion. Further appeal dismissed. Police executing warrant at dwelling house must announce presence, give notice of purpose absent exigent circumstances. Crown laid suffi cient eviden- tiary foundation of reasonable concern for safety, destruction of evidence to justify unannounced entry. Police had basis to believe police, public safety at risk as accused had some associations with at least one gang member. Easily destructible nature of cocaine made police concerns about loss of evidence reason- able. Police not merely executing general policy to eff ect hard en- try in drug searches but had spe- cifi cally investigated residence and its occupants. Lead investi- gator had readily accessible copy of warrant which fulfi lled pur- pose of requirement in s. 29(1) of Criminal Code that warrant be presented to those present at search when entry made. R. v. Cornell (July 30, 2010, S.C.C., McLachlin C.J.C., Bin- nie, LeBel, Fish, Charron, Roth- stein and Cromwell JJ., File No. 33186) Decision at 243 C.C.C. (3d) 510; 83 W.C.B. (2d) 26 affi rmed. 90 W.C.B. (2d) 615 (63 pp.). Labour Relations CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION Distinctively aboriginal component of society's service delivery methodology did not render it federal undertaking Appellant was society incorpo- rated pursuant to Society Act (B.C.), by number of First Na- tions. In British Columbia child welfare governed primarily by Child, Family and Community Service Act (B.C.) ("CFCSA"). Exercise of delegated authority under CFCSA was major func- tion with which society engaged. Respondent union applied for certifi cation. Society objected on ground functions fell within fed- eral jurisdiction, being matters related to "Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians" pursu- ant to s. 91(24) of Constitution Act, 1867 ("CA"). Union sub- mitted that labour relations fell within s. 92(13) of CA, being matters related to civil rights in January 10, 2011 • Law Times COURT DECISIONS CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. the province. Labour Relations Board found that labour rela- tions remained within provincial jurisdiction and certifi ed union. Society's application for judicial review granted. Chambers judge used broader conception of "In- dianness" and found that op- erations of society suffi ciently re- lated to matters under s. 91(24) of CA, that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction. Court of Appeal allowed appeal. Applying functional test, Court of Appeal held that primarily provincial jurisdiction over la- bour relations not ousted sim- ply because enterprises engaged interests of aboriginal groups or provided services in cultur- ally sensitive manner. Sections of CFCSA that applied special con- siderations to aboriginal children did not make Act legislation in respect of Indians and did not bring activities of society within legislative scope of s. 91(24) of CA. Board's certifi cation order reinstated. Appeal dismissed. La- bour relations are presumptively provincial matter and federal government has jurisdiction over labour relations only by way of narrowly interpreted exception. Narrow question is whether par- ticular entity is "federal work, undertaking or business". It is inquiry with two distinct steps, fi rst being functional test. Con- sideration of "core" of federal head of power not part of func- tional test; test looks to whether "Undertaking, service or busi- ness is a federal one." To extent functional test inconclusive, presumption of provincial juris- diction will apply unless core of federal head of power would be impaired by provincial regula- tion of entity's labour relations. Only then is narrow analysis of "core" of federal power engaged. Federal government's role in ar- January web specials i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. rangement limited to fi nancing society's provision of certain ser- vices to certain children. Society regulated exclusively by province and employees exercise exclusive- ly provincial delegated authority. Child welfare services off ered by society provided primarily by ab- original employees to aboriginal clients and designed to protect, preserve and benefi t distinct needs of children and families of Collective First Nations. Dis- tinctively aboriginal component of society's service delivery meth- odology does not alter nature of operations and activities such that it is federal undertaking for purposes of allocating labour relations jurisdiction. Nor does federal funding rise to level of federal operational involvement necessary to demonstrate that society is federal undertaking. NIL/TU,O Child and Fam- ily Services Society v. B.C.G.E.U. (Nov. 4, 2010, S.C.C., McLach- lin C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Des- champs, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ., File No. 32862) Decision at 296 D.L.R. (4th) 364, 168 A.C.W.S. (3d) 771 was affi rmed. 194 A.C.W.S. (3d) 796 (47 pp.). FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Immigration SELECTION AND ADMISSION IAD was obliged to determine genuineness of marriage Federal Court Judge erred in holding that Immigration Ap- peal Division ("IAD") was cor- rect to conclude that respondent had not made misrepresentation when he stated on immigration form that he was living with his spouse and to decline to consid- er genuineness of respondent's marriage "because it was not in play in IAD decision". IAD was obliged to determine genuineness of marriage in this case because it was misrepresentation alleged in immigration offi cer's report un- der s. 44(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.), and was closely related to mis- representation found by Immi- gration Division of Board. Th at is, if marriage was not genuine, P. was not living with his wife as his spouse and, as his counsel conceded, his statement on form that he was living with his spouse constituted misrepresentation. IAD wrongly declined jurisdic- tion when it failed to consider genuineness of P.'s marriage. Matter was ordered remitted for redetermination by IAD, diff er- ently constituted, in accordance with these reasons. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Peirovdin- nabi (Oct. 14, 2010, F.C.A., Ev- ans, Dawson and Stratas JJ.A., File No. A-48-10) Decision at 184 A.C.W.S. (3d) 206 was re- versed. 194 A.C.W.S. (3d) 244 (13 pp.). Taxation INCOME TAX Appeal challenging revocation of registration was premature Motion by respondent seek- ing order quashing appellant's appeal. Appellant was notifi ed through registered mail that Minister of National Revenue proposed to revoke its registra- tion within 30 days and that if it wished to object it could provide within 90 days' written notice of objection pursuant to s. 168(4) of Income Tax Act (Can.). Business Interruption Insurance Second Edition Good Faith in Canadian Insurance Law Insurance and Risk Management in Commercial Leasing Property Damage Claims under Commercial Insurance Policies canadalawbook.ca CA082 For a 30-day, no-risk evaluation call: 1.800.565.6967 Canada Law Book, a Thomson Reuters business. Prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. www.lawtimesnews.com Richard Krempulec, Q.C. Dawn Michaeloff Roderick S.W . Winsor Sean Gosnell of Borden Ladner Ger Bruce W ebster and John Seigel of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP vais LLP and

• Cover