36526   Marcel René Provost v. Attorney General of Canada representing the United States of America

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – Extradition

On May 30, 2007, the Applicant pleaded guilty in Virginia to the offence of carnal knowledge of a minor, contrary to the Virginia Code. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment but the sentence was suspended on certain conditions which included supervision by a probation officer and various probation orders. In August 2007, the Applicant applied to the Virginia Court to temporarily return to Canada but his request was denied.  He subsequently left Virginia and returned to Canada in violation of the order which required him to remain in the United States until all details for the transfer of his probation to Canada were completed. He contacted his probation officer and told him he was not going back to the United States. The probation officer then suggested revoking the suspended sentence which ensued and an arrest warrant was delivered. On October 31, 2013, the United States requested the Applicant’s extradition for the enforcement of his sentence. On December 18, 2013, the Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed pursuant to s. 15 of the Extradition Act. The Applicant’s committal into custody was ordered by the Superior Court on February 7, 2014 and on August 25, 2014, the Justice Minister issued an order of surrender. The Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the application for judicial review.

36544     Frank A. Togstad v. Surface Rights Board, Altalink Management Ltd., Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

             - and between -

            Kurt A. Kure, Lois A. Kure v. Surface Rights Board, Altalink Management Ltd., Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta

Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction

The respondent, Altalink Management Ltd. (“Altalink”) obtained a permit and licence from the Alberta Utilities Commission (“AUC”) to construct and operate the Western Alberta Transmission Line (“WATL”) between Calgary and Edmonton. A public hearing process was conducted to determine the best route between the cities, taking into account the rights of property owners and the needs of Altalink. In the course of the public hearing, the AUC heard and ruled on a notice of constitutional question alleging that the WATL was an international or interprovincial work or undertaking, depriving the AUC of jurisdiction. The AUC rejected this argument, ruling that it did have jurisdiction over the proposed WATL and that the work was wholly within the province of Alberta. The applicants did not appeal this decision. Subsequently, Altalink brought two separate applications before the Surface Rights Board to obtain a right of entry to lands owned by the applicants to construct the transmission line. The applicants all opposed the application on the basis, inter alia, that the electrical transmission lines were not “wholly in Alberta” and that the provincial board therefore could not exercise jurisdiction. The Application for judicial review by the Applicant in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36501   Shelley Davidson, Richard Davidson v. 1773907 Alberta Ltd.

Civil Procedure – Parties – Substitution

The applicant Shelley Davidson is a former employee of Silverado Oilfield Ventures Ltd (Silverado). Silverado alleged that while employed as the company’s financial administrative manager, Davidson defrauded the company of $1.5 million. Silverado sued Davidson and her husband to recover the funds it says were fraudulently taken.

Before this action was prosecuted, Silverado went into receivership. A receiver was appointed pursuant to the terms of the bank’s security agreement. The assets of Silverado, including the action, were seized by the receiver. The receiver negotiated the sale of Silverado’s assets, including the action, to the respondent numbered company (177 Ltd.). The sale was subject to court approval. 177 Ltd. is owned by the parents of the wife of the former CEO of Silverado. Court approval was granted and shortly thereafter notice of the assignment of the action was given to the applicants. Upon being notified of the assignment, the applicants applied for an order striking 177 Ltd’s claim against them. The case management judge found that the assignment of the action from Silverado to 177 Ltd was tainted by champerty and maintenance. The application to strike was granted. The appeal was allowed.

36044   City of Laval v. Frères Maristes (Iberville)

Administrative law – Appeal – Standard of review

The Frères Maristes (Iberville) (“Frères Maristes”), the owners of the immovable known as the “Colisée de Laval” (“Colisée”), went before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (“ATQ”) to contest the value entered on the property assessment roll for the Colisée and the exemption percentage to which they were entitled under s. 204(17) of the Act respecting municipal taxation (“AMT”). They argued that the Colisée should be exempt from all taxes under s. 204 AMT because it was owned by a religious institution and used as a private sports centre by students from Collège Laval as part of their ordinary activities. In the alternative, they argued that the non‑taxable portion should be set at 65%, which was the proportion in which they used the Colisée, rather than 30%, the percentage entered on the roll for the preceding years. The City of Laval (“City”) wanted the 30% partial exemption granted to the Frères Maristes to be withdrawn in its entirety because the Colisée was used by a tenant, 2866‑0645 Québec inc., for purposes other than the ones specified in s. 204 AMT. It asked the ATQ to enter the tenant as an occupant of the Colisée and to make the unit of assessment fully taxable in its hands. The Court of Quebec allowed the appeal and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and the motion for judicial review.

36548    Noel Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission, Commission scolaire de la langue française

Civil procedure – Appeals

In 2013, the applicant filed a complaint with the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission, alleging that he had been the subject of discrimination with respect to a job competition. When that complaint was dismissed, the applicant sought judicial review. That application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of $14,500. The applicant filed a notice of appeal and also moved to have the costs award stayed. The motion was dismissed. The respondent sought an order to stay the appeal pending payment of the costs award and for security for costs on appeal. Eventually, on April 10, 2015, the applicant’s appeal was dismissed for failure to post security for costs.

36626   457351 Ontario Inc, Diana Vacca v. Golf North Properties Inc.

Civil procedure – Res judicata

Prior litigation involving a vendor take-back mortgage agreement between the parties was resolved as a result of a Superior Court (Lemon J.) ruling dated August 29, 2013 which was upheld on appeal on May 1, 2014 (application for leave to appeal to this Court dismissed, no. 35970). The mortgage was to be discharged as the agreement expressly provided that if the transaction failed to close for any reason not directly attributable to the fault of the Respondent, the mortgage was deemed to be satisfied in full. Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck the plaintiff’s statement of claim struck and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

36593    Jeries Yacob Qumsyeh v. The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of Americe and the Minister of Justice

Criminal law – Extradition – Committal hearings

Mr. Qumsyeh is wanted in the United States for the 1982 murder of his ex-wife. Mr. Qumsyeh is a citizen of the Kingdom of Jordan and returned to his homeland before he was charged by United States authorities. In Jordan, Mr. Qumsyeh was prosecuted and convicted for the murder and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. As part of a general amnesty, Mr. Qumsyeh was released from prison after serving six and a half years of his sentence. After Mr. Qumsyeh came to Canada in 2011, the United States requested his extradition so that he could be tried in Michigan for the murder.

The extradition judge ordered the committal of Mr. Qumsyeh into custody to await the Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender him for prosecution of the alleged offence in the United States. The Minister subsequently ordered Mr. Qumsyeh’s surrender. The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr. Qumsyeh’s appeal from the committal order, as well as his application for judicial review from the Minister’s decision to surrender him to the United States.

36397   Keith Glen McKinnon v. Attorney General of Québec

Municipal law - Persons disqualified from profession - Interest

The municipality of Saint-Augustin is composed of the village of Saint-Augustin and the community of Pakuashipi which are separated by a river. In 2008, Mr. McKinnon, applicant, and the municipality signed a contract by which Mr. McKinnon’s corporation agreed to provide passenger ferry service by airboat between the two riverbanks. In 2010, Mr. McKinnon was elected as municipal councillor for Saint-Augustin. After the election, the Attorney General of Quebec asked the Superior Court to disqualify him from holding office pursuant to s. 304 of the Act Respecting Elections and Referendums in Municipalities, CQLR c E-2.2 (the “Act”).  Section 304 provides that “[a] person who knowingly, during his term as member of the council of a municipality or as member of a municipal body, has an interest, directly or indirectly, in a contract with the municipality or body is disqualified from holding office as a member of the council of a municipality”. The Superior Court dismissed the Attorney General’s motion, finding that while all the elements of s. 304 had been established, Mr. McKinnon’s situation fell within certain exceptions listed in s. 305 of the Act. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and disqualified Mr. McKinnon.

36520    Janusz Teodor Kaminski v. Attorney General of Canada

Pensions – Canada Pension Plan – Disability benefits

Mr. Kaminski first applied for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits in January 2003. His application was denied both initially and upon reconsideration by the Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada (formerly Human Resources and Skills Development Canada). His subsequent appeals to the Review Tribunal and the Appeal Board were also dismissed. Mr. Kaminski then sought judicial review of the Appeal Board’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal which was also dismissed. In January 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada denied Mr. Kaminski’s application for leave to appeal. Mr. Kaminski then sought reconsideration by the Federal Court of Appeal, which was denied and he again sought leave to appeal of the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the refusal to reconsider. His second application for leave to appeal was again dismissed.

In August 2011, Mr. Kaminski made another application for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. The Minister denied the 2011 application and upon reconsideration, finding that the Appeal Board’s decision in the 2003 application was final and binding with respect to whether Mr. Kaminski had a disability as of December 31, 2002 that entitled him to benefits. Mr. Kaminski again unsuccessfully appealed this decision to the Review Tribunal. The Appeal Board denied leave to appeal the Review Tribunal’s decision and the application for judicial review to the Federal Court was dismissed. Mr. Kaminski commenced an appeal of this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. In March 2015, Mr. Kaminski’s appeal was dismissed for delay as he had not completed the steps necessary to advance the appeal. Following this, the Federal Court of Appeal issued a direction refusing to reconsider its decision to dismiss the appeal for delay.