36979  Darin Andrew Randle v. Her Majesty the Queen

(B.C.)

Criminal law – Evidence – “Mr. Big” confessions

In the course of the police investigation into Mr. Cornish’s disappearance, the police conducted an undercover operation, often described as a “Mr. Big.” The applicant was the target of this operation. The applicant and Mr. Cornish were friends and business partners in the drug trade. The operation culminated in the applicant’s admission to Mr. Big that he disposed of Mr. Cornish’s remains after Mr. Cornish’s accidental death during the course of a struggle. The applicant was convicted of one count of interfering with human remains. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.

36965  Dheeraj Kumar Mittal v. Minister of Health

(FC)

Administrative law – Judicial review – Bias

Mr. Mittal is a dentist licensed in Manitoba. He was registered with the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program as a dental services provider to registered First Nations and recognized Inuit and Innu persons. His status was terminated and his name was placed on a “Do Not Register” list on December 2, 2008, after an audit found that he made unsupported claims under the Program. Mr. Mittal has applied several times to be re-enrolled as a dental provider under the Program. On October 10, 2013, Health Canada’s First Nations and Inuit Health Branch in Manitoba confirmed the dismissal of his request for re-enrolment. Mr. Mittal applied for judicial review. His application was dismissed. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.

36992  Serge Takri v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Que.)

Criminal law – Defence of mistake of fact as to consent

Mr. Takri was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement. The only issue at trial was consent. On appeal, Mr. Takri argued that the trial judge had not given sufficient reasons for her decision, had erred in refusing to use certain photographs, had not followed the principles laid down by the Court in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, and had handed down an unreasonable verdict. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal.

36971  Robert Beaulieu v. Attorney General of Canada

(FC)

Administrative law – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – Seniority

Section 8 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988, SOR/88361 (“Regulations”), provided that the rule of seniority applied in the case of acting appointments in the RCMP unless the RCMP Commissioner “directs otherwise”. The applicant Mr. Beaulieu, an RCMP member since 1982, held an investigator position with the rank of corporal. He filed three grievances against decisions appointing corporals who had less seniority than he had to acting positions. Mr. Beaulieu acknowledged the Commissioner’s right to deviate from the seniority principle, but he argued that if the Commissioner wanted to create a general rule in this regard, he had to adopt a rule or standing order within the meaning of s. 2(2) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R10, which he had not done. In the alternative, he argued that the Act did not authorize the Commissioner to delegate his power to adopt rules and that, by deviating from the general seniority principle through Part 4.E.9 of the Career Management Manual, which provided for the appointment of members on the basis of merit, the Commissioner had unlawfully subdelegated that power. The grievances, the application for judicial review and the appeal were all dismissed.

36936  Michele Torre v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

(FC)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Immigration – Inadmissibility and removal

The applicant Mr. Torre is an Italian citizen who has been a permanent resident of Canada since 1967. In 1996, he pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and was sentenced to eight years and nine months in prison. Three other persons, Mr. Torre’s employers at the time, were convicted in the same matter. In 2006, Mr. Torre was arrested as part of Operation Colisée, which targeted the Italian mafia in Montréal. He was not convicted of an offence as a result of that operation, but he was in pretrial custody for two years and nine months.

In 2013, the Minister prepared two reports on Mr. Torre under s. 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”), and referred them to the Immigration Division for an admissibility hearing. The Minister was of the opinion that Mr. Torre was inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality and organized criminality. Mr. Torre then moved for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay because of the time that had passed between his conviction and the admissibility hearings. Mr. Torre’s motion for a stay of proceedings was dismissed. His application for judicial review and subsequent appeal were also dismissed.

36934  Jean-Marc Poulin de Courval, in his capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Ergün Bouloud v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

(FC)

Administrative law – Judicial review – Bankruptcy

The applicant, the trustee in bankruptcy of Ergün Bouloud, tried to recover the currency seized by customs officers from the bankrupt and forfeited under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, SC 2000, c 1. A request for review was made to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, but the return of the currency was denied because the amounts had allegedly been obtained unlawfully through the commission of an indictable offence. The application for judicial review and subsequent appeal were dismissed.

36914  Association des réalisateurs v. Attorney General of Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

- and -

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 675, Jacqueline Turgeon, Francine Durocher, Jacques Gobeil v. Attorney General of Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

(Que.)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Freedom of association — Collective bargaining

In October 2007, the Canadian Union of Public Employees entered into a collective agreement with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That collective agreement, which provided for pay increases, took effect on October 1, 2007 and expired in September 2010.

On March 12, 2009, An Act to restrain the Government of Canada’s expenditures in relation to employment, S.C. 2009, c. 2 (“Act”), came into force. It imposed limits on the pay increases that could be granted to all federal public sector employees, including employees of Crown corporations like the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The rates of increase specified in the Act also applied to employees whose collective agreement had been entered into before December 2008, which was the case for the employees represented by the Union. The Act also provided that any provision of a collective agreement that granted any form of increase to remuneration exceeding the rates set out in the Act was of no effect. The Union was not consulted prior to the enactment of the Act.

Relying on s. 2(d) of the Charter, the Union brought a motion to institute proceedings for a declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Act did not apply to its members and a declaration that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had an obligation to comply with the collective agreement entered into in October 2007. On January 29, 2015, this Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 43(1.1) of the Supreme Court Act so the Court of Appeal could decide it in accordance with Meredith v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 2, and Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the motions to institute proceedings.