Top court won't hear cases on breast implants, marijuana church

The Supreme Court of Canada trimmed its workload Thursday by declining to hear appeals in dozens of cases, including one involving marijuana as a religious rite and another seeking damages from Health Canada for failing to protect women from defective breast implants.

Letting lower-court decisions stand, the court rejected all 31 cases in the latest batch of applications for leave to appeal. As is customary, it gave no reasons for not taking the cases.

Here is a sampling:

S. Joyce Attis and A. Tesluk v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Joyce Attis and Alexandra Tesluk had been implanted with breast implants that were removed because they leaked or ruptured, causing permanent medical problems. The manufacturer, Dow Corning, eventually paid billions of dollars to settle lawsuits in various countries.

Attis and Tesluk sought to launch a class action suit against Health Canada, arguing that it ought to have known about the unsuitability of the implants, ignored warnings from scientists and failed to test, ban or recall the implants or warn women of the risks.

The case raised questions about the duty of care owed by a regulatory agency and the immunity of the Crown to charges of negligence. But Ontario courts refused to certify the class, blocking the suit from proceeding, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Dawn Paxton et al. v. Shaffiq Ramji

Paxton's doctor prescribed an acne drug that carried the risk of causing fetal malformation on the understanding that she would not become pregnant because her husband had a vasectomy. The vasectomy failed and a child was born with facial deformities and other problems.

The Paxtons sued the doctor for negligence.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, ruling that the doctor met the standard of care by relying on the father’s vasectomy as an effective form of birth control. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the action should be dismissed, but did so on different grounds, concluding that the doctor owed no duty of care to the child. The Supreme Court let those decisions stand.

Reverend Brother Michael J. Baldasaro and Reverend Brother Walter A. Tucker v. Her Majesty the Queen

The losers here are Baldasaro and Tucker, leaders of a marijuana-friendly group in Hamilton, Ont., called the Assembly of the Church of the Universe.

While out on bail in a marijuana trafficking case, the two men sought a court order allowing them to use and distribute marijuana on grounds that it forms part of their religion. They argued that a bail condition requiring them to abstain from possessing the drug infringed on their right to religious freedom.

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed and the Supreme Court declined to second-guess it.

Paul Fromm and Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. v. Richard Warman

Fromm, who heads the association, is a Toronto man with a background in far-right causes. Warman is a lawyer and former Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator who filed a series of complaints and legal actions against the association.

Warman eventually sued the association for defamation in connection with postings on websites calling him "an enemy of free speech," "a member of the thought police" and "a high priest of censorship," among other things.

Fromm said the posting were fair comment on matters of public interest, but Warman won a $30,000 defamation judgment and the Supreme Court let it stand.