36667   A.N. v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Que.)

Criminal law – Bodily harm – Testimony of children

The applicant was charged with 21 counts in connection with allegations of bodily injury to and physical abuse of his minor children. The alleged physical abuse covered an 11‑year period and included: being slapped in the face; being hit with objects; having to take very cold showers; being pricked by sewing needles on the fingertips, on the soles of the feet, inside the nostrils and elsewhere on the body; being burned on the hands, forearms, tongue and elsewhere on the body with a metal rod preheated on the stove; having pubic hair pulled out; and being required to run barefoot on the snow. The applicant was convicted on all the counts. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36740   Asad Ansari v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility

Ansad Ansari was convicted by a jury of participating in or contributing to the activities of a terrorist group. He attended a winter campout organized by ringleaders of a terrorist group. The ringleaders intended to select terrorists from among those invited to the camp. There is no direct evidence that the participants were told the true purpose of the camp. The only evidence of Mr. Ansari’s participation in militaristic activities in the camp is his appearance in one video-tape of a group run and testimony he participated in one obstacle course. The ringleaders held ideological discussions and Mr. Ansari attended one discussion but the speaker did not discuss terrorism. Camp activities were videotaped. Mr. Ansari converted the videotape into digital format but testified that he did not view its contents. Mr. Ansari repaired one ringleader’s computer. After his arrest, police seized material from his bedroom that included material downloaded from public websites. Some material glorifies radical Islamic views and terrorism. Some material shows violent acts by Islamic terrorists. In a pre-trial motion, most of the seized material was excluded as too prejudicial. Some of the material was admitted during Mr. Ansari’s cross-examination after the trial judge held that he had claimed good character in his testimony-in-chief. The charge to the jury did not explicitly instruct the jury that the offence under s. 83.18 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, requires proof of conduct that creates a risk of harm beyond de minimis. The applicant was convicted by jury of participating in or contributing to activities of a terrorist group. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.

36657   Tim Bodnarchuk v. Professional Conduct Committee of the Saskatchewan College of Paramedics

(Sask.)

Administrative law — Appeals — Standard of review

The Discipline Committee of the Saskatchewan College of Paramedics found one of its member paramedics guilty of professional misconduct for breaching s. 23 ofThe Paramedics Act, SS 2007, c. P-0.1 and he was ordered to complete a course, at his expense and pay a fine of $3,000. The Council of the Saskatchewan College of Paramedics upheld that order and added an official reprimand to the sentence. The reviewing judge overturned the Committee’s decision with respect to the discipline of the paramedic and remitted the matter back to the Committee for a re-hearing. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the decision of the Committee.

36641    Ross Eadie v. MTS Inc.

- and -

Shaw Communications Inc., COCEGO Cable Inc., Rogers Communications Partnership, BCE Inc., Telus Communications Company and Quebecor Media Inc., Canadian Human Rights Commission

(FC)

Human rights — Jurisdiction — Canadian Human Rights Commission

Mr. Eadie, who is blind, filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) raising three allegations of discrimination in the provision of those services contrary to s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6. The first two complaints were resolved by the CRTC, so the only outstanding complaint was that the set-top box supplied by MTS fails to provide audible cues to facilitate access and use of the interactive programming guide. There was no dispute that Mr. Eadie could not use the interactive programming guide without the assistance of a sighted person, so the only real questions were whether a technical solution that would accommodate Mr. Eadie was available, and whether such a solution would impose undue hardship on MTS. The parties agreed that this issue was systemic within the Canadian broadcasting industry. The investigator recommended that the CHRC deal with the complaint. The CHRC adopted the investigator’s decision and referred the matter to an inquiry. MTS’s application for judicial review was allowed and the matter was returned to the Commission for redetermination. Mr. Eadie’s appeal and MTS’s cross-appeal were both dismissed.

36734    Robert Must v. Yana Shkuryna

(Ont.)

Status of persons – Appointment of Public Guardian and Trustee – Family law

In the context of family law proceedings, Ms. Shkuryna sought an order appointing the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee as legal representative to Mr. Must. The order was granted along with an interim order that Ms. Shkuryna was to have custody of the child and Mr. Must supervised access. Mr. Must’s appeal to the Ontario Superior Court was dismissed and his appeal to the Court of Appeal was quashed.

36721   William Lubecki v. Maria Lubecki, Anne-Marie Ashcroft, Thomas Ashcroft

(Que.)

Wills and estates – Interpretation of wills  – Real property

The applicant, sued Maria Lubecki, his coliquidator, pursuant to an alleged difficulty in interpreting and applying the testament and codicil of their mother, who passed away on August 24, 2004. The Superior Court of Quebec granted the Applicant’s action and the respondents’ counterclaim in part. The Court of Appeal of Quebec allowed the appeal and cross-appeal, the trial court decision was overturned in part.

36719   United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. v. Ryan Wright, Julia Zislin

(Ont.)

Civil Procedure — Class Actions — Statutory Interpretation

The respondents each arranged for UPS to deliver personal items to their homes from the United States using a waybill or an International Parcel Shipping Order. Upon delivery, they were required to pay a brokerage fee, a disbursement fee and a bond fee before UPS would release their goods. These fees are associated with UPS moving the goods across the border. Each paid the fees and received their goods. They brought a motion to certify a class proceeding, alleging that the demand and payment of the fees breached the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. A., and s. 347 of the Criminal Codeor, if an agreement to pay the fees was made, that it was unenforceable under the Consumer Protection Act.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion to strike and granted the motions for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal for Ontario refused the motion for leave to appeal.

36772    Pfizer Canada Inc., Pfizer Inc. and Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v. Teva Canada Limited

(FC)

Commercial law — Corporations — Amalgamation

The applicant Pfizer Canada Inc. is a pharmaceutical company authorized to sell sildenafil citrate tablets in Canada under the name VIAGRA®, and the other applicants are affiliated companies (collectively, “Pfizer”). The respondent Teva Canada Limited (“Teva”) is a pharmaceutical company which was called Novopharm Limited before February 2010. In August 2010, Teva and ratiopharm Inc. (“ratiopharm”), along with a few other companies, amalgamated under s. 185 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44. The amalgamated company continued as Teva.

In 2012, following the dismissal of an application by Pfizer for a prohibition order relating to Teva’s generic version of VIAGRA®, Teva-Sildenafil (formerly Novo-Sildenafil), Teva brought an action against Pfizer for damages under s. 8 of thePatented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133, seeking to recover the losses it allegedly suffered from Teva-Sildenafil’s delayed entry into the market. Pfizer brought a motion for summary judgment, on the basis that Teva’s action was barred by an agreement between Pfizer and ratiopharm Inc., entered into before the amalgamation, settling proceedings related to ratiopharm’s generic version of VIAGRA®, ratio-Sildenafil. Teva also brought a motion for summary judgment, alleging that use of the agreement to preclude the action was not a genuine issue for trial. The Federal Court dismissed the applicants’ motion for summary judgment and granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the applicants.

36750   Winnipeg Airports Authority Inc. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada and Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, Local 50600

(Man.)

Administrative law ― Judicial review ― Standard of review

The applicant operates the airport. The union respondents, represent the grievors who are employees of the applicant. The grievors work in various jobs related to the operation of the airport. The grievors work shift work which requires them, from time to time, to work evening or night shifts on weekends. The collective agreements detail when an employee is entitled to be paid a shift premium and a weekend premium. It also contains a provision that there shall be no pyramiding of premiums under the agreement. Sixty-five grievances were filed challenging the employer’s refusal to pay the weekend premium in addition to the shift premium for the same hours worked on a weekend.

All of the grievances went to arbitration under the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, before a sole arbitrator. The arbitrator allowed the grievances and decided that the unions’ interpretation of the collective agreement was correct and affected employees are entitled to be paid the weekend premium when they work a regular evening or night shift on weekends in addition to the shift premium. On judicial review, the application judge quashed the arbitrator’s award and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitrator’s award.

36691   City of Québec v. Équipements É.M.U. ltée, Desjardins General Insurance Group, The Personal General Insurance Inc., ING Insurance Company of Canada, SSQ General Insurance Company Inc., Promutuel Lévisienne-Orléans, Société mutuelle d’assurance générale, Autobus Nordiques inc., La Capitale General Insurance Inc.

- and between -

City of Québec v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, Traders General Insurance Company

- and between -

City of Québec v. ING Insurance Company of Canada, Gestion Ma‑Sy inc., EBC inc., Marie‑Claire Deschênes

- and -

City of L’Ancienne-Lorette

(Que.)

Municipal law – Civil liability – Public law immunity

This litigation concerns several cases between the City of Québec (the applicant) and numerous insurers and the respondent, Équipements É.M.U. Ltée, following four rainfall events in the Québec area in December 2003, September 2004 and August and September 2005. That bad weather resulted in flooding caused by the backup of the storm sewer network and the overflow of the Lorette river, which was part of the applicant’s storm sewer network. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the actions and the applicant was found liable for damages. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36670   Kareem O. Glasford (n/k/a Kareem O. Vinton), Bronwen A.D. Glasford v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited

(Ont.)

Charter of Rights — Private international law — Courts

The applicants commenced an action in St. Kitts against the respondent CIBC FirstCaribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (“FirstCaribbean”) in respect of an equitable mortgage agreement. The agreement was entered into to finance the construction of a house in St. Kitts. The registered owner of the property, applicant Bronwen Glasford, was born in St. Kitts and resides there or in Barbados, where she operates a private medical practice. The applicant Kareem (the second borrower), Ms. Glasford’s son, was born in and resides in Canada. FirstCaribbean is incorporated under the laws of Barbados and registered to do business in St. Kitts.

In their St. Kitts action, the applicants claimed fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, conspiracy, procuring breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence. FirstCaribbean also commenced an action in St. Kitts, initiating mortgage realization proceedings and seizing the property due to an alleged default by the applicants. When the applicants commenced an action in Ontario (alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of collateral warranty, and breach of fiduciary duty), the respondents brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action. The applicants submit that the Ontario courts have jurisdiction because, inter alia, Mr. Vinton signed the mortgage documentation and received and acted upon alleged misrepresentations in Ontario. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicants’ action as being a matter outside of the jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario and, alternatively, by finding Ontario a forum non conveniens. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.

36767   Anica Visic v. University of Windsor, Mary Gold, Ross Paul, Brian Mazer

(Ont.)

Human rights — Failure to accommodate — Costs

The Applicant was a student at the Respondent’s law school. She failed to meet the requirements for first-year students. While the Respondent accommodated her disability, the adequacy of this accommodation is contested. The Applicant was subsequently readmitted as a first-year law student for medical reasons. The Respondent has refused to remove the unsuccessful academic year from the Applicant’s transcript. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for delay and failure to pay prior costs granted. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

36747   Marcello Aravena v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law — Defences — Duress

During the evening and early morning of April 7-8, 2006, eight members of the Toronto Bandidos motorcycle gang were shot and killed on a farm property owned by Mr. Wayne Kellestine. The applicant, Mr. Marcelo Aravena, was charged with eight counts of first degree murder, together with Messrs. Brett Gardiner (file number 36758), Frank Mather (36768), Wayne Kellestine, Dwight Mushey and Michael Sandham. They invoked the defence of duress. After a lengthy trial, the jury convicted Messrs. Kellestine, Mushey and Sandham of eight counts of first degree murder. The Crown had alleged that these three individuals had actually perpetrated the murders. In addition, the jury convicted Messrs. Aravena and Mather of manslaughter on the first homicide and seven counts of first degree murder on the other homicides. Finally, the jury convicted Mr. Gardiner of manslaughter on the first two homicides and first degree murder on the other six counts. It was the Crown’s position that Messrs. Aravena, Gardiner and Mather had aided and abetted in the murders. Mr. Aravena, as well as Messrs. Gardiner, Mather, Kellestine and Mushey, appealed their convictions but unsuccessfully.

36758   Brett Gardiner v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law — Defences — Duress

During the evening and early morning of April 7-8, 2006, eight members of the Toronto Bandidos motorcycle gang were shot and killed on a farm property owned by Mr. Wayne Kellestine. The applicant, Mr. Brett Gardiner, was charged with eight counts of first degree murder, together with Messrs. Marcelo Aravena (file number 36747), Frank Mather (36768), Wayne Kellestine, Dwight Mushey and Michael Sandham. They invoked the defence of duress. After a lengthy trial, the jury convicted Messrs. Kellestine, Mushey and Sandham of eight counts of first degree murder. The Crown had alleged that these three individuals had actually perpetrated the murders. In addition, the jury convicted Messrs. Aravena and Mather of manslaughter on the first homicide and seven counts of first degree murder on the other homicides. Finally, the jury convicted Mr. Gardiner of manslaughter on the first two homicides and first degree murder on the other six counts. It was the Crown’s position that Messrs. Aravena, Gardiner and Mather had aided and abetted in the murders. Mr. Gardiner, as well as Messrs. Aravena, Mather, Kellestine and Mushey, appealed their convictions but unsuccessfully.

36768   Frank John Mather v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law — Defences — Duress

During the evening and early morning of April 7-8, 2006, eight members of the Toronto Bandidos motorcycle gang were shot and killed on a farm property owned by Mr. Wayne Kellestine. The applicant, Mr. Frank Mather, was charged with eight counts of first degree murder, together with Messrs. Marcelo Aravena (file number 36747), Brett Gardiner (36758), Wayne Kellestine, Dwight Mushey and Michael Sandham. They invoked the defence of duress. After a lengthy trial, the jury convicted Messrs. Kellestine, Mushey and Sandham of eight counts of first degree murder. The Crown had alleged that these three individuals had actually perpetrated the murders. In addition, the jury convicted Messrs. Aravena and Mather of manslaughter on the first homicide and seven counts of first degree murder on the other homicides. Finally, the jury convicted Mr. Gardiner of manslaughter on the first two homicides and first degree murder on the other six counts. It was the Crown’s position that Messrs. Mather, Gardiner and Aravena had aided and abetted in the murders. Mr. Mather, as well as Messrs. Aravena, Gardiner, Kellestine and Mushey, appealed their convictions but unsuccessfully.

36621    Staff Sergeant Walter Boogaard v. Attorney General of Canada

(FC)

Labour relations — Royal Canadian Mounted Police — Promotions

Staff Sergeant Boogaard, a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, has been seeking promotion for some time. It appears that he has been unsuccessful because of an incident in 2000 in which his gun was stolen by two women. After a disciplinary hearing based on an agreed statement of facts which reflected his version of events, Staff Sgt. Boogaard was reprimanded and ordered to forfeit five days’ pay. Subsequent to this incident, he was promoted within the non-commissioned ranks, and his record was described as “excellent and beyond reproach”. He passed the officer Candidate Program in 2005 and 2009, but his eligibility expired without receipt of a commission. A parallel grievance proceeding found that a harassment complaint filed by Staff Sgt. Boogaard had been investigated unreasonably and that gossip had prejudiced his chances for advancement. When the Deputy Commissioner advised Staff Sgt. Boogaard that there were continued concerns about the gun incident, he answered the Deputy Commissioner’s questions. However, when Staff Sgt. Boogaard challenged the Commissioner’s decision, the Commissioner indicated that he was unwilling to promote Staff Sgt. Boogaard because he was concerned about the women’s version of the events. Staff Sgt. Boogaard sought judicial review in the Federal Court. The Federal Court granted judicial review and set aside the Commissioner’s decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Federal Court, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

36714    Stephen Goldman v. Jacques Houle, Attorney General of Quebec

(Que.)

Law of professions – Lawyers – Discipline

On February 15, 2006, further to a decision of the applications committee of the Barreau du Québec, the respondent Jacques Houle, then the executive director of the Barreau du Québec, published a notice of disbarment against the applicant Mr. Goldman. The notice wrongly stated that the disbarment was enforceable notwithstanding an appeal. Mr. Goldman appealed the decision to the Professions Tribunal and then, after realizing his mistake, Mr. Houle corrected the notice of disbarment on March 9, 2006. In 2007, the Professions Tribunal dismissed Mr. Goldman’s appeal. Mr. Goldman subsequently brought proceedings against the Barreau du Québec seeking damages for the publication of the incorrect notice, but he was unsuccessful. In 2012, he filed a disciplinary complaint against Mr. Houle with the disciplinary committee of the Barreau du Québec.

The disciplinary committee dismissed the complaint. It found that Mr. Houle was acting in the exercise of his functions when he published the notice of disbarment and that he therefore enjoyed the immunity recognized both by s. 116, para. 4 of the Professional Code and by the case law. As well, in the committee’s opinion, Mr. Houle’s mistake did not give rise to any breach of professional ethics. The Professions Tribunal dismissed the appeal from that decision. After filing an application for leave to appeal to this Court, which was dismissed on October 16, 2014 for lack of jurisdiction, Mr. Goldman filed a motion in evocation with the Quebec Superior Court. He sought judicial review of the Professions Tribunal’s decision.

36707    B.B. v. A.D.S.

(Que.)

Family law – Custody – Review

The applicant applied for a change in his access to the parties’ child. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application and ordered supervised access. The Court of Appeal allowed a motion to dismiss the appeal.

36738   M.A. v. T.A.

(Que.)

Civil procedure – Order – Motion for safeguard

The respondent filed a motion for safeguand seeking the attribution of temporary guardianship of a protected person to a designated reasonable person of the family pursuant s. 271 and 272 of the Quebec Civil Code.  The Superior Court of Quebec granted the motion for safeguard. The Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the appeal.

36651   Her Majesty the Queen v. Tobby Carrier

(Que.)

Criminal law — Judge’s duties — Charge or instructions

After being charged with the first degree murder of his brother, Ismaël Carrier, and the attempted murder of his parents, Nelson Carrier and Chantal Michaud, the respondent was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and the two counts of attempted murder. On appeal, he argued mainly that the trial judge had erred in law in not putting the defence of mental disorder and the defence of mental disorder automatism to the jury. The Court of Appeal held that the defence of mental disorder automatism, which in its view had an air of reality, should indeed have been put to the jury. However, the Court of Appeal refused to apply the curative proviso in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. It therefore allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the same charges.

36724    M.K. v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law — Appeals

In 2012, MK was charged with counts of sexual assault, sexual touching and invitation to touch for a sexual purpose between December 25, 1989 and September 27, 1991. The complainant alleged sexual misconduct in Markham and then in Picton, from when she was 5 or 6 years old until she was 12 or 13 years old. MK testified and denied the allegations. The complainant reported her allegations to police after she began counselling with a therapist. Defence counsel applied for production of the therapist’s notes because of the possibility of suggestive influences during therapy and the circumstances surrounding the complainant’s revelations of her allegations. The trial judge reviewed the therapist’s notes and dismissed the motion for disclosure, finding that nothing in the therapist’s notes suggested that counseling had reshaped the complainant’s memory. MK was convicted for the offences related to incidents in Picton and acquitted in relation to the incidents alleged to have occurred in Markham. MK’s appeal from the convictions was dismissed.

36717    Robert Lajoie v. Agence du Revenu du Québec

(Que.)

Taxation – Income tax – Assessment.

The applicant, a Canadian citizen, was an independent consultant for international oil companies. Since 2002, he had therefore stayed in several countries to work.

The Deputy Minister of Revenue of Quebec issued notices of assessment to the applicant for the 2006 and 2007 taxation years in which it was determined that he was a Quebec resident. The applicant challenged the notices of assessment in the Court of Québec, seeking to have them vacated. The only issue before the Court of Québec was whether the applicant had a residence elsewhere than Quebec on December 31 of each of the 2006 and 2007 taxation years. The Court of Quebec dismissed the Applicant’s appeal motion. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36557   Maria C. Erdmann v. Complaints Inquiry Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta

(Alta.)

Charter of Rights — Courts — Judges

Ms. Erdmann was a chartered accountant and a registered member of the Respondent Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta (the “Institute”). In 2010, she was disciplined for unprofessional conduct; sanctions were imposed and she was ordered to pay the full costs of the hearing. On appeal, the fine was upheld, the costs awarded were reduced, and specific costs were awarded in relation to the appeal. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, as was her application for leave to appeal (SCC File No. 36503).

When the fine and the first installments of costs came due, Ms. Erdmann did not pay or arrange an alternative payment schedule. The matter was remitted to the Appeal Tribunal, which accepted written submissions from Ms. Erdmann and the Institute. Although the Appeal Tribunal recognized that the original conduct was not serious enough to warrant suspension or cancellation of Ms. Erdmann’s registration, it found that she could not maintain her registration while defying the order of the Appeal Tribunal, and cancelled her registration. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal and her motion to adduce new evidence.

36763   Jeff Pilgrim v. Pattison Sign Group

(Que.)

Employment law — Wrongful dismissal — Evidence

The Applicant alleges he was wrongfully dismissed by the Respondent. In 2011, the “Commission des relations de travail (CRT)” rendered a first decision dismissing the Applicant’s complaint, finding that the latter had repudiated the terms of his employment contract. The Superior Court quashed that decision. In 2012, back before the CRT, the Board dismissed the Applicant’s complaint based on the same evidence. The Commissioner found that once a new compensation plan was introduced by the Respondent, the Applicant adopted a confrontational attitude towards the company, culminating in a meeting with the president in which the Applicant insulted him, leading to the Applicant’s dismissal. Both Commissioners in the two complaints set aside the wrongful dismissal allegation. The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed the Application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal for Quebec dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

36742    Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service Board

- and -

Attorney General of Ontario

(FC)

Constitutional law — Division of powers — Jurisdiction

The CIRB, acting under the federal Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, certified the applicant, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, as the bargaining agent for two bargaining units of employees employed by the respondent, NAPS Board. The certification orders were based upon, among other things, the view that the labour relations of NAPS —a police service for certain areas of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation—are federally regulated.

A few years later, two cases were released: NIL/TU,O Child and Family Services v. B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union, 2010 SCC 45, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 696 and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, 2010 SCC 46, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 737. In NIL/TU,O and Native Child, it was held that the labour relations of employees of agencies that provide services to Aboriginal families and children were provincially regulated.

After the release of NIL/TU,O and Native Child, the NAPS Board thought that the labour relations of NAPS might be provincially regulated. So it applied to the CIRB for an order setting aside the certification orders. CIRB upheld the certification orders it had previously made and dismissed the application. The Federal Court of Appeal granted the application for judicial review, set aside the decision of the CIRB and directed it to grant the application of the NAPS Board and set aside the certification orders.

36754   Weizhen Tang v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law — Criminal Code offences

The applicant, Mr. Weizhen Tang, was found guilty after trial before a judge and jury on a count of fraud over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Tang’s offence involved defrauding investors from Canada, United States and China in an investment fund he managed called the “Overseas Chinese Fund”. An examination conducted by a forensic accountant of the Ontario Securities Commission revealed that approximately $50 million was raised during the material time, and of that approximately $26 million was returned to investors. Of the remaining $24 million, $19 million was consumed by the Overseas Chinese Fund in its trading activities, and $5 million was used for administration and other expenses. With respect to the $5 million, approximately $2.8 million went to Mr. Tang and the various companies and business entities he controlled: Weizhen Tang and Associates, Weizhen Tang Wealth Club and Weizhen Tang Corporation. For his sentence, Mr. Tang was ordered to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture of proceeds of crime within five years of his release from incarceration. The Court of Appeal dismissed both Mr. Tang’s appeals, against conviction and against sentence.

36788   Todd Brothers Contracting Limited v. Corporation of the Township of Algonquin Highlands

(Ont.)

Contracts — Breach

The applicant, Todd Brothers Contracting Limited, commenced an action seeking damages for breach of a construction contract. The respondent is the Corporation of the Township of Algonquin Highlands. The contract arose from a request for tender prices, for the construction of a new runway, and the rehabilitation of an existing runway, at the Haliburton-Stanhope Airport. The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment. The motion judge held that the waiver executed by the applicant precludes it from claiming damages, and that the applicant has not proved the damages claimed. The motion judge held that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. The motion for summary judgment was granted and the applicant’s action was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36748   Hexagone Group, L.P. v. Attorney General of Quebec

- and -

Commission des Lésions professionnelles, Commission de la Santé et de la Sécurité du Travail

(Que.)

Administrative law — Judicial review

The Hexagone Group (“contractor”) was awarded a contract by the Ministère des Transports of Quebec (“department”) to demolish and rebuild overpasses on an autoroute. The autoroute in question went across the construction site and remained open despite the work being done by the contractor. The department owned all the structures and roads in question. The contractor and the department did not agree on whether the contractor was the “principal contractor” on the construction site within the meaning of the Act respecting occupational health and safety, C.Q.L.R. c. S‑2.1 (“AOHS”). The AOHS defines the principal contractor as “the owner or any other person who, on a construction site, is responsible for the carrying out of all the work”. The person considered to be the principal contractor has certain obligations under the applicable legislation and regulations.

An inspector from the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (“CSST”) determined that the contractor was the principal contractor within the meaning of the AOHS. The contractor contested that decision before the CSST’s administrative review branch, which confirmed the inspector’s decision. The contractor then filed an application with the Commission des lésions professionnelles (“CLP”) contesting the CSST’s decision. The CLP confirmed the decisions rendered at the lower levels and found that the contractor was the principal contractor on the site. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for judicial review. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

36764    Estate of Fay Arlene Fuerst v. Law Society of Upper Canada

(Ont.)

Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors — Records

The Respondent, Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”) was appointed by a judge of the Superior Court of Justice as trustee of 35 boxes of client material and six computers from the professional legal practice of a deceased lawyer, Fay Arlene Fuerst. The Applicant, Mr. Rallis is the husband of Ms. Fuerst. The order permitted the LSUC to examine the contents of the boxes and computers, provide information to clients where appropriate, and destroy materials to protect confidential client information provided the last activity occurred at least 10 years prior to the destruction. Mr. Rallis appealed the order, however his appeal was dismissed.

36685   EndoResearch inc., Fernand Labrie v. Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, Université Laval

- and between -

EndoResearch inc., Fernand Labrie v. Université Laval, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec

- and between -

EndoResearch inc., Fernand Labrie v. Université Laval, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec

- and -

Endoceutics inc., Jacques Philipon, ès qualités, Jean Moisan, ès qualités, Jean McNicoll, ès qualités

(Que.)

Arbitration — Commercial arbitration award

As part of a process involving a partnership agreement with the Schering Corporation, a pharmaceutical company, the applicants, Dr. Labrie and EndoResearch inc., signed a letter of agreement with the respondents, Université Laval and Centre hospitalier universitaire du Québec. The letter of agreement dealt, among other things, with the sharing of the royalties that might be generated by the use and marketing of the results of research conducted in connection with the [translation] “Mobilizing Project”, which covered comprehensive research on topics that included certain hormone‑dependent cancers. The agreement was signed in June 1991 and, for the next 15 years, no royalty was paid to the respondents. In 2007, the respondents filed a notice of arbitration to claim the royalties allegedly owed to them after being informed that EndoResearch inc. was preparing to assign to a new company, EndoCeutics inc., all its patent rights and patent applications relating to two products resulting from the project. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion to annul arbitration award. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.

36684   Endoceutics inc. v. Université Laval and Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec

- and between -

Endoceutics inc. v. Université Laval and Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec

- and between -

Endoceutics inc. v. Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec and Université Laval

- and -

EndoResearch inc., Fernand Labrie, Jacques Philippon, ès qualités, Jean Moisan, ès qualités, Jean McNicoll, ès qualités

(Que.)

Arbitration — Commercial arbitration award

As a result of a dispute under an agreement dealing in part with the marketing of products developed in the course of a research partnership, the respondents, Université Laval and Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, filed a notice of arbitration against Dr. Labrie and EndoResearch inc. seeking payment of royalties allegedly owed to them. Shortly after the hearing before the arbitration tribunal began, the respondents learned that the applicant, EndoCeutics inc., had just signed an international agreement with Bayer Inc. involving the marketing of one of the products at issue in the arbitration. The respondents therefore made a series of amendments to the notice of arbitration to include the applicant as a party. The applicant challenged, inter alia, the arbitration tribunal’s jurisdiction over it because it was not a party to the agreement between the respondents, Dr. Labrie and EndoResearch inc. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion to annul arbitration award. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.