36245 Roch Laflamme v. Brigitte Nicol (Civil procedure – Appeal – Court of Appeal refusing leave to appeal)

On appeal from the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal dated August 6, 2014. The applicant brought an action in damages against an employee of the municipality of St-Magloire. The Superior Court dismissed the action at the preliminary stage on the ground that it was unfounded in law and that the proceeding was improper. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on the ground that the applicant had not raised any error of law or alleged anything that could justify the intervention of the Court of Appeal.

36246 Roch Laflamme v. Municipality of St-Magloire (Civil procedure – Appeal)

On appeal from the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal dated August 6, 2014. The municipality of St Magloire brought an action under ss. 227 et seq. of the Act respecting land use planning and development, CQLR, c. A-19.1, seeking the cessation of non-conforming renovation and enlargement work on the applicant’s property and an order for the demolition of part of the work. The Superior Court allowed the action, and the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal on the ground that the case did not raise any question of principle or other matter that ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal. In its opinion, the applicant was essentially challenging the assessment of the evidence. As well, the applicant’s allegations [TRANSLATION] “are incomplete in several respects and do not support the validity of the conclusions sought” (para. 5).

36274 [E.G], [A.G.] v. Director of Child and Family Services, Solicitor for the Children (Status of the person – Child protection)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta dated November 24, 2014. The applicants were the parents of five children. The three eldest children were the mother’s nieces and nephew. They were adopted by the applicants after their biological parents were killed in a tragic motor vehicle accident in 2006. The applicants also have twins of their own who were born a few months before the accident. In 2011 it was discovered that the adopted children had been severely physically and psychologically abused by the applicants. At that time, the twins showed no signs of physical abuse. The Director obtained a temporary guardianship order for the adopted children and a supervision order to monitor the twins. The parents consented to these applications. Once removed from the home, two of the adopted children revealed to psychologists and police officers that the twins had also been abused. With the parents’ consent, the Director obtained an order for temporary guardianship of the twins. The parents consented to a permanent guardianship order for the adopted children. The parents continued to have supervised access to the twins but denied ever having abused them. The Director applied for a permanent guardianship order for the twins. On July 3, 2014 the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta allowed the appeal and the Director was ordered to return the children to the parents and subject to conditions. On July 22, 2014 the Court of Appeal for Alberta granted the Director’s application for stay. On November 24, 2014 the Court of Appeal of Alberta allowed the Director’s appeal.

36196 Richard Preston Centre for Excellence Society and Micmac Native Friendship Society v. Jono Developments Ltd. and Halifax Regional Municipality (Judicial review — Duty of fairness — Legitimate expectations)

On appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dated October 9, 2014. This appeal concerns the sale of a surplus school property, St. Patrick’s Alexandra Elementary School (the “Property”) by the respondent Halifax Regional Municipality to the respondent Jono Developments Limited.

The North End Community Health Association and the applicants, the Richard Preston Centre for Excellence Society and the Micmac Native Friendship Society sought judicial review of the Municipality’s decision to sell the Property to Jono. They alleged that the Municipality breached the duty of fairness owed to them by not following the Municipality’s Procedures for the Disposal of Surplus Schools. They also argued that the Municipality breached the Halifax Regional Municipality Charter, S.N.S. 2008, c. 39 by selling the property below market value.

Justice MacAdam quashed the Municipality’s decision that approved the sale of the Property. On appeal, a majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set Justice MacAdam’s order aside.

36251 Michelle Landry et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (Appeal – Civil procedure)

On appeal from judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal dated September 10, 2014. On February 24, 2012, the applicants filed their first statement of claim in the Federal Court, in which they sought a declaratory order recognizing that they are non-status Indians who are members of a distinct Mi’kmaq community and holders of treaty and Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal title in lands spread across New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. They filed a second statement of claim on September 13, 2012, containing the same facts and claims and adding some additional facts. On a motion to a prothonotary, the Applicants’ statements of claim were struck. The appeal from these decisions was dismissed.

36154 Gestion 1050 de la Montagne Inc., Sunshine Boys Holdings Corporation v. Furst Management Inc., Rainbow Capital Investments Limited  (Property – Dismemberments of right of ownership – Emphyteusis)

On appeal from the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal dated October 10, 2014. The respondents sought the resiliation of their contract of emphyteusis with the applicants on the ground that the applicants were in default, in part because they had not paid the emphyteutic rent and the property taxes totalling $268,805.64. However, at the start of the trial, the applicants paid all the arrears of rent. After acknowledging that contracts of emphyteusis are governed by the general rules of contract, including art. 1604 of the Civil Code of Québec, the trial judge dismissed the respondents’ action. Applying art. 1604, the judge found that the evidence was insufficient to show that the defaults had occurred repeatedly or to establish that the defaults were of sufficient importance to justify resiliation. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the ground that the defaults were [TRANSLATION] “anything but of minor importance” (para. 2) and that, in the circumstances, the judge should have allowed the action.

36203 Brent Kern Family Trust v. Her Majesty the Queen (Income Tax — Trusts)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal dated October 14, 2014. Mr. Kern was initially the sole shareholder and controlling mind in Wilf’s Oilfield Services (1997) Ltd. (“OPCO”). Mr. Kern became the preferred shareholder in OPCO and 905558 Alberta Ltd. (“Holdco”). Mr. Kern, OPCO, and other family members were beneficiaries in the applicant Brent Kern Family Trust (the “Brent Trust”), while Holdco, Mr. Kern, and other family members were beneficiaries in the Kern Family Trust (the “Kern Trust”). The common shares Mr. Kern held in OPCO and Holdco were exchanged for preferred shares, and the OPCO common shares were sold for valuable consideration to the Brent Trust. In 2005, OPCO declared a $245,000 dividend in favour of the Kern Family Trust (the “Kern Trust”). The Kern Trust allocated that dividend to Holdco. Holdco declared a $245,000 dividend on the common shares owned by the applicant Brent Kern Family Trust (the “Brent Trust”). Holdco then allocated and paid $245,000 to Mr. Kern, who lent $245,000 to OPCO. On the understanding that s. 75(2) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1, (5th Supp.), applied, the Brent Trust deemed its dividend to be received by OPCO as a non-taxable payment of inter-corporate dividends pursuant to s. 112 because OPCO had transferred the property while it was an enduring potential beneficiary, and the Brent Trust reported no income from the dividend. In 2006, similar transactions and income tax reporting occurred for another amount.

After the transactions, Canada v. Sommerer, 2012 FCA 207, 2012 DTC 5126, held that a sale for fair market value would not invoke s. 75(2). As a result, the 2005 and 2006 transactions, in respect of which neither OPCO nor Mr. Kern had declared income nor paid tax, were reassessed on the basis of non-reporting of taxable dividends. Citing Sommerer, the Minister asserted that s. 75(2) did not apply or, in the alternative, asserted GAAR and the alleged abuse of s. 75(2).

The Tax Court of Canada held that Sommerer applied and dismissed the appeals from the reassessments. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36216 Her Majesty the Queen v. Timothy Louie (Criminal law – Procedural law )

On appeal from the judgement of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dated October 24, 2014. Mr. Louie was charged with sexual assault, sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching for conduct alleged to have occurred in 1996 and 1997. The complainant was approximately 9 years old at the time of the offences. When the complainant was 15 years old, she told her mother that Mr. Louie had raped her but the police were not contacted. The complainant contacted police in 2010 after receiving a Facebook friend request from Mr. Louie’s Facebook account. On October 24, 2014 the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

36158 Walter Pruden v. Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal and Kikino Metis Settlement (Limitation of actions – Administrative law – Judicial review)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta dated September 10, 2014. Kib Hogenson, who held Metis Title to one parcel of land and a Provisional Metis Title to another, passed away in 2006 without filing estate instructions. The lands were transferred to the KMS Council as land trustee. The Provisional Metis Title on the lands had expired before Mr. Hogenson’s death and was later cancelled. Part of the parcel of land held by Metis Title was transferred to a third party in the fall of 2010, and the remainder stayed with the Council. In December 2012, the applicant requested that lands held by Provisional Metis Title and the remainder of the lands held by Metis Title be posted as available and he submitted his application for both. He claimed that as the two parcels of land had belonged to his adopted brother, they should go to his family or himself. KMS Council denied the application on the basis that the Council decided to retain the lands for agricultural purposes. On January 4, 2013, the applicant filed an appeal in writing to the Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal.

The Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that he did not have a right of appeal as the appeal had not been filed on time and there was no reason to extend the appeal deadline. The Court of Appeal for Alberta dismissed the appeal.

36208 Edward Andrew Dennis, Harold Bell, Nathan Victor Macklin and Ian Lorne McCreary v. The Queen  (Expropriation – Property)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal dated October 15, 2014. The applicants brought a proposed class proceeding against the respondents in relation to legislation which amended and later repealed the Canadian Wheat Board Act, RSC 1985, c. C-24. They claimed that, through the enactment of the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, S.C. 2011 c. 25 (the “MFGFA”), the respondents: unlawfully expropriated assets belonging to the Canadian Wheat Board (“CWB”), in which the applicants had an interest; converted property in which the applicants had an interest; were unjustly enriched; unlawfully interfered with the economic relations of the applicants; and breached fiduciary duties owed to the applicants. The applicants also claimed that during the 2011-2012 pool period the respondents mismanaged monies under the CWB, using them to cover the costs and losses of the transition or paying them into the contingency fund instead of to producers as required and failing to establish a reasonable price for grain remaining unsold.

The Federal Court allowed in part the Crown’s motion for an order striking out the proposed class proceeding. The claims for expropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment, unlawful interference with economic relations and breach of trust were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The applicants’ claim for mismanagement was allowed to proceed. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal and the respondents’ cross-appeal.

36218 Anthony Coote v. Lawyer's Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO), et al. (Civil procedure – Motions )

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal court of Appeal dated April 10, 2014. The applicant’s son was the subject of proceedings taken under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. Several legal proceedings were brought by the applicant against various parties who were involved, in one manner or another, in those immigration proceedings and subsequent appeals. One of those respondents was the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO), an insurance company that provides professional liability insurance to lawyers in Ontario.

LAWPRO filed a motion seeking to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant. The applicant responded by filing a motion raising Charter issues and seeking to have LAWPRO declared vexatious. The applicant attempted to have LAWPRO’s motion against him struck out. He failed when a prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed his motion to quash the motion filed by LAWPRO. On April 10, 2014 the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36226 Anthony Coote v. Lawyer's Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO), et al. (Civil procedure – Interlocutory orders)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal dated October 29, 2014. The applicant and the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO) were involved in a legal proceeding in which both parties had filed a motion seeking to have the other declared vexatious. The applicant appealed two interlocutory orders issued by the Federal Court. While those appeals were pending, the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant and was required to obtain leave of a judge in order to continue his appeal. He filed a request for leave to continue his appeal but failed to file a notice of motion. The Federal Court of Appeal denied the Applicant’s request for leave to continue the consolidated appeal and the consolidated appeal was dismissed on the ground of mootness.

36249 Anthony Coote v. Sandra Theroulde, Hugette Thomson, Pauline Labelle, John Kromkamp, Kim Willis, Carol DiPiero, Kathy Barrett, Marilyn Gamble and Jeremy Glick - and between - Anthony Coote v. Roger Bilodeau Q.C., Nadia Loreti, Micheline Alam, Barbara Kincaid, Mary McFadyen and Janice E. Cheney - and between - Anthony Coote v. LAWPRO et al.  (Civil procedure – Motion to strike applicant’s statement of claim)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal dated October 29, 2014. The applicant’s son was the subject of proceedings taken under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. Several legal proceedings were brought by the applicant against various parties who were involved, in one manner or another, in those immigration proceedings and subsequent appeals. The respondents included the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company (LAWPRO), as well as counsel, registrars, and various other employees of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada.

The various respondents sought to have the statements of claim filed against them struck out. They were successful. While the applicant’s appeal was pending, he was declared a vexatious litigant by the Federal Court and was prohibited from continuing his appeal without obtaining leave to do so.

36217 Neila Catherine MacQueen, Joseph M. Petitpas, Ann Marie Ross, Kathleen Iris Crawford v. Attorney General of Canada - and between - Neila Catherine MacQueen, Joseph M. Petitpas, Ann Marie Ross, Kathleen Iris Crawford v. Sydney Steel Corporation, a body corporate, and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Nova Scotia (Civil procedure – Costs – Certification)

On appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dated October 22, 2014. In 2011, the applicants were successful in having a class action certified in an environmental case. The respondents’ appeal was allowed and the class action was decertified. The applicants then sought to have the Court of Appeal reconsider its original decision, taking into account recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. The intended motion for reconsideration was dismissed. The applicants’ application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed on January 15, 2015. The Court of Appeal had to determine costs in the certification motion, the appeal and the intended motion for rehearing.