36085 Glover v. Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec, et al.  (Administrative law – Jurisdiction)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec pronounced July 17, 2014. In 2013, the Fédération des producteurs acéricoles du Québec submitted a request to the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires du Québec asking it to investigate and make various orders.  The Fédération alleged that Mr. Glover, who was domiciled in Prince Edward Island, operated a business that purchased maple syrup from Quebec producers without being a purchaser authorized by the Fédération.  It was also alleged that Mr. Doyon was domiciled in Quebec and was engaged in maple syrup purchasing activities in collaboration with Mr. Glover’s business without being an authorized purchaser either.  Mr. Glover and Mr. Doyon asked the Régie to rule on its jurisdiction before proceeding further, since they believed that it clearly had no jurisdiction over matters of interprovincial trade. The Régie decided that it should investigate the context surrounding the maple syrup sales before ruling on the issue of its jurisdiction.  The Superior Court allowed exceptions to dismiss raised by the Fédération and dismissed the motion for judicial review.  The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.  Bélanger J.A. was of the opinion that the decision refusing to interfere and letting the Régie rule on its own jurisdiction was not unreasonable.  She noted that it should be left up to administrative tribunals to exercise their jurisdiction, [translation] “other than in exceptional cases where they are preparing to act without jurisdiction” (para. 6, referring toCentre universitaire de santé McGill (CUSM) v. Association des résidents de McGill (ARM), 2010 QCCA 385).

36149  Heickert v. The Queen  (Charter – Criminal law – Arbitrary detention – Search and seizure)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba pronounced September 5, 2014. The applicant and the victim were rival drug dealers.  The victim was shot and he was found surrounded by glass from a broken coffee table. The victim died.  The applicant was arrested for the murder.  The trial judge ruled that the search and seizure of the applicant’s clothing was admissible in evidence.  The applicant was convicted of first degree murder.  The applicant’s conviction appeal was dismissed.

36016  Duchesne v. A.G. Quebec  (Civil liability – Fault – Evidence)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec pronounced May 23, 2014. Ms. Duchesne, the applicant, was an employee in the Quebec public service.  In June 2009, she consulted a technician in the human resources branch, who advised her that she was eligible for a gross amount of $1,596.09 per month in retirement benefits.  As a result, Ms. Duchesne decided to retire as of August 2009.  But in July 2009, a notice from the Commission administrative des régimes de retraite et d’assurances (the “CARRA”), informed her that the amount in question would instead be $995.10 per month, which was in fact the amount she then received.  Ms. Duchesne brought an action against the Attorney General of Quebec in which she sought compensation on the basis of the technician’s misrepresentations.  The Superior Court allowed the action and ordered the Attorney General to pay Ms. Duchesne $277,616.01.  The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Attorney General and dismissed the action.

36151  Liu v. Comité de discipline du centre de santé et de services sociaux Haut-Richelieu-Rouville, et al. (Legislation – Interpretation – Medical examiner’s jurisdiction to examine complaint)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec pronounced September 4, 2014. In March 2011, a physician lodged a complaint against the applicant with the complaints commissioner of the Centre de santé et de services sociaux du Haut-Richelieu-Rouville under the Act respecting health services and social services (“AHSSS”).  Section 45 of the AHSSS provides that where a user makes a complaint concerning a physician, the commissioner must refer it without delay to a medical examiner.  Section 47, para. 4, provides that the medical examiner “must examine the complaint within 45 days of its referral [and must, b]efore the expiry of the time limit . . . transmit his or her conclusions, including reasons, in writing to the user and the professional concerned”.  Section 49 specifies that if the medical examiner fails to communicate those conclusions within 45 days, he or she is deemed to have communicated negative conclusions to the user on the date of expiry of the time limit.  In this case, it was twenty days after the time limit had expired that the medical examiner informed the user that [translation] “the complaint calls for a disciplinary investigation”.  A discipline committee was then established, and the investigation proceeded. At the start of the hearing, the applicant submitted that the discipline committee lacked jurisdiction.  He argued that the effect of the failure to transmit the conclusions before the time limit expired was that the medical examiner ceased to have jurisdiction and that, as of the 46th day, the medical examiner was barred from investigating further.  The committee dismissed the motion.  The Superior Court dismissed the motion for judicial review and the Court of Appeal, the appeal.

36194 Patenaude v. Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales, et al.(Charter of Rights – Self-incrimination – Right to equality)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec pronounced December 2, 2014. In August 2012, a peace officer gave the applicant a vehicle inspection notice under art. 524 of the Highway Safety Code, CQLR, c. C-24.2.  This notice imposed a duty on the applicant, as a vehicle owner, to submit his vehicle to a mechanical inspection and to provide the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec with evidence of compliance.  The applicant failed to submit his vehicle to a mechanical inspection within the prescribed time.  Before the Court of Quebec, the applicant challenged the constitutionality of arts. 523 and 524 of the Highway Safety Code.  He argued that art. 524 of the Code obliged him to incriminate himself and was therefore contrary to s. 11(c) of the Charter.  He also submitted that arts. 523 and 524 of theCode violated s. 15(2) of the Charter by giving peace officers and the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec a distinct and excessive power. The Court of Quebec dismissed the motion challenging the constitutionality of arts. 523 and 524 of the Highway Safety Code, and convicted the applicant of failing to submit his vehicle for a mechanical inspection required by a peace officer. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal.

36204 Tupper v. Nova Scotia Barristers' Society, et al.  (Appeals – Motion for extension of time to bring application for judicial review)

On appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal pronounced October 2, 2014. In 1985, the Applicant was ordered to pay non-pecuniary general damages to a plaintiff after a trial involving a motor vehicle accident.  He has since been involved in numerous lawsuits based on allegations that all concerned were involved in an insurance fraud conspiracy against him, in this case past and current members of the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society.  His complaint was dismissed by the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, and the complaint’s dismissal was upheld by a review committee on February 21, 2012. The applicant was subsequently informed that he did not have a right to appeal in the circumstances and that his only option would be an application for judicial review.  The applicant nonetheless appealed to the Court of Appeal on grounds that the absence of a right to appeal was unconstitutional.  The Court of Appeal concluded that the constitutional argument was without merit and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  The applicant’s application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision to this Court was denied on June 27, 2013. On July 16, 2013, the Applicant filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of the February 21, 2012 decision at issue.

36145  Fabrikant v. The Queen, et al.  (Civil procedure – Courts)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced July 28, 2014. The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s motion for the repayment of part of the fee associated with filing an application for judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and the applicant’s motion for a reconsideration.

35995 Simon v. The Queen  (Civil procedure – Motion to strike)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced February 18, 2014. In 2009 and 2011, the Applicant sent correspondence to the Director General of the Canada Pension Plan and the former Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, respectively.  He had sponsored his former spouse to come to Canada and was inquiring about the possibility that he might owe a possible sponsorship debt because his former spouse might have improperly received social assistance.  When the Applicant did not get what he considered to be satisfactory responses, he attempted to bring an appeal as of right in this Court. A registry officer refused the applicant’s notice of appeal for filing, gave him documents concerning the proper procedure, and referred him to the Court’s website.  Dissatisfied, the Applicant brought an action in the Federal Court against, among others, the Registry of this Court, the registry officer with whom he had dealt, the Registrar, and the federal authority that approved the Court’s website. The Respondent brought a motion to strike the Applicant’s statement of claim. The Federal Court granted the Respondent’s motion to strike the statement of claim. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36048 Murphy v. Boe, et al.  (Appeals – Leave to appeal)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia pronounced June 3, 2014. This application stems from a series of proceedings brought by the applicant, who claims damages and other remedies arising from his expulsion in 1996 from the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry. The applicant appeals the dismissal of his motion by the Court of Appeal to have two orders of a judge of that court sitting alone varied or discharged:  an order dismissing his application for indigent status and an order dismissing his third application for an extension of time to file his appeal materials as well as the appeal.  The Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s conduct constituted an abuse of the court’s process and ordered that no process by the applicant be accepted for filing by the Court of Appeal, with the exception that the applicant could apply for leave to file a process if he was represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of British Columbia.

36118  Hagedorn v. The Queen  (Criminal law – Evidence – Fresh Evidence)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced September 26, 2014. The applicant was at a bar.  There was an altercation.  The applicant was charged with aggravated assault.  The victim sustained injuries to his face and ultimately to his liver and spleen.  The injuries were life threatening, requiring surgical intervention, a lengthy hospital stay and a slow recovery.  The applicant was convicted of aggravated assault.  The conviction appeal was dismissed.

36150 Marriott v. The Queen  (Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Sentencing — Segregation)

On appeal from the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal pronounced March 25, 2014. The applicant pled guilty to one count of attempted murder in relation to a shooting that occurred in the parking lot of a children’s hospital in Halifax in 2008.  He was 18 years old at the time of the offence and admitted to being the shooter.  In accordance with a joint recommendation by the Crown and his trial counsel, the applicant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with no reduction for pre-trial custody.  At the time of sentencing, the applicant had already spent 29 months in pre-trial custody, with repeated periods of time spent in segregation. The applicant’s guilty plea and the joint recommendation were premised partly on the Crown’s withdrawal of an eleven count indictment alleging, among other things, another attempted murder on the same victim.  The applicant’s co-accused received sentences ranging from 5 to 10 years of imprisonment for their participation in the shooting. The applicant sought to appeal his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred because the facts presented by the Crown were incomplete, that he did not have the requisite intent for attempted murder, that certain particulars were overlooked, that his segregation while imprisoned prior to and after sentencing constituted cruel and unusual punishment; and, lastly, that his sentence was demonstrably unfit.

36096 Maracle v. Maracle, et al.  (Aboriginal law — Indian reserves — Certificates of possession — “Reserve lands” — “Lands situated in a reserve”)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced July 30, 2014. Mr. Maracle and another party were ordered to pay the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation $250,000 in general damages and $50,000 in punitive damages.  To satisfy the judgment and several subsequent costs awards, the First Nation took out a writ of seizure and sale on three properties to which Mr. Maracle held Certificates of Possession — not the lands that were in issue in the original trial.  The writs were validated and the Sheriff was directed to sell the Certificates of Possession in accordance with the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, to satisfy the debt owed to the First Nation.  The sales required the approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs. Costs were again awarded against Mr. Maracle.  When the First Nation requested that the Sheriff proceed with the sale in accordance with the motions judge’s order, the Sheriff declined on the advice of the Attorney General on the grounds that the lands were “reserve lands” and were therefore not subject to seizure.  The First Nation then brought a motion to enforce the transfer.  The motions judge granted the motion and set a method for selling the Certificates of Possession to satisfy the debt.  The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.

36014  Begman v. Mejery  (Appeals — Action dismissed in Small Claims Court)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced June 6, 2014.  The applicant commenced an action against the respondent for what she claims is “dental malpractice” in Small Claims Court.  Her action was dismissed.  She wanted to appeal that decision and brought a motion to have the fee for obtaining the transcript waived.  That motion was dismissed but the time to order the transcript was extended. The applicant appealed to the Superior Court.  The court dismissed the motion finding the decision was correct.  The applicant’s alternate requests that she be allowed to proceed with the appeal without a transcript or that the respondent be ordered to pay for it were also dismissed.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal. 

36120 McAteer, et al. v. A.G. Canada (Charter of Rights – Freedom of expression – Freedom of religion – Freedom of conscience – Right to equality – Citizenship)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced August 13, 2014. The three applicants are permanent residents of Canada.  Although they wish to become Canadian citizens, they each object to the statutory requirement under the Citizenship Act to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen.  McAteer emigrated from Ireland and argues taking the oath would be a betrayal of his republican heritage and impede his activities in support of ending the Canadian monarchy.  Topey emigrated from Jamaica and claims that it would violate her religious beliefs as a Rastafarian to make an oath to the person who is the head of Babylon.  Bar-Natan emigrated from Israel and argued that it would violate his belief in equality of all persons to swear allegiance to a symbol of inequality where some must bow to others for reasons of ancestry.  They seek a declaration that an oath requiring them to bear true allegiance to “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors” violates their rights under sections 2(a), (b) and 15(1) of the Charter and are not saved by s. 1. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding:  i) there was no violation of sections 2(a) and 15(1) of the Charter; ii) the oath was a form of compelled speech that prima facie violates s. 2(b) Charter rights; and iii) the violation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal but allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal and set aside that part of the lower court judgment holding that the oath violates s. 2(b) of the Charter.

36146 Roy v. The Queen;  36147 Burrows v. The Queen 36156  Parker v. The Queen;  36159 Turmel v. The Queen(Criminal Law)

On appeal from judgments of the Federal Court of Appeal. The applicants commenced a constitutional challenge to theMarihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119, the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, with respect to medical use of marihuana.  Their action was stayed pending a decision in Neil Allard, Tanya Beemish, David Hebert, Shawn Davey v. R., 2014 FC 280, which raises a constitutional challenge to aspects of the regulatory regime controlling medicinal use of marihuana in Canada.  They applied to the Federal Court, Trial Division for interim relief from the prohibitions on marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act pending a decision in his trial.  The motions were dismissed.  They appealed to the Federal of Appeal from the decision to stay the actions and the decision denying interim relief at trial.  They applied to the Court of Appeal for interim relief from the prohibitions on marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act pending a decision in the appeal.  The motions for interim relief were denied by the Court of Appeal.

36139  Wilson v. Canada Revenue Agency  (Judgments and orders – Extension of time)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced June 14, 2013.  Mr. Wilson launched an action against Revenue Canada (now Canada Revenue Agency) in 1999 to recover income tax refunds he believed were owing to him and damages.  His action was dismissed, as were all subsequent appeals.  Mr. Wilson commenced other proceedings that were dismissed.  On April 22, 2013, his motion for review of costs ordered and certified by an Assessment Officer was dismissed.  On June 14, 2013 his motion to extend time to appeal the decision of Hughes J. was dismissed.