36895 Leslie Podolski v. Her Majesty the Queen
- and between -
Peter Manolakos v. Her Majesty the Queen
- and between -
Sheldon O’Donnell v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Informer privilege – Appeals
The three applicants (along with two other accused) were charged with offences relating to the killing of three men. Before trial, the trial judge held an off-the record inquiry into confidential informant status of several individuals. Only one individual was found to be a confidential informant. The applicants were tried and convicted by a jury. Each of the three applicants appealed his conviction. In their notices of appeal, the applicants asserted, among others, a number of deficiencies in the conduct of the off-the-record inquiry. The Crown sought to strike these grounds of appeal from the applicants’ notices of appeal on the basis that the applicants lacked standing to appeal a ruling on informer privilege. The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled on informer privilege. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia granted the Crown’s application to strike grounds of appeal.
36824 John Gabriel Viszlai v. Her Majesty the Queen
Charter of Rights – Arbitrary detention
The applicant was convicted of historical sexual offences with respect to D.W. and D.D. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.
36906 Scott Galambos v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Appeal – Leave to appeal
Mr. Galamboswas convicted of various offences for attempting to smuggle five stun guns into Canada. He was denied an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from sentence and a full panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal asking for reconsideration of that decision.
36801 O'Chiese First Nation v. Alberta Energy Regulator, Shell Canada Limited
Administrative law — Appeals — Regulatory Board
The applicant, the O’Chiese First Nation (“OCFN”) is located in the area encompassed by Treaty 6 and is an Indian Band under the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5. The respondent, Shell Canada Limited applied to the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) and obtained approval in two cases for two natural gasoline pipelines, for a mineral surface lease for a petroleum and natural gas well site and a licence of occupation on public Crown lands. The OCFN filed a request with the AER for a regulatory appeal of the approvals.
The AER dismissed both requests for a regulatory appeal. In both cases, the AER concluded the OCFN did not demonstrate that the approvals given to Shell would directly and adversely affect an OCFN member. The OCFN made application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the two AER decisions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36878 Louis Kakoutis, Effie Kakoutis v. Bank of Nova Scotia
Judgments and orders – Summary judgments
In July 2011, Mr. and Ms. Kakoutis entered into a Personal Credit Agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”) for the sum of $30,000.00 as revolving credit on their Scotialine account and the sum of $400,000.00 under a Mortgage Loan. Both loans were secured by a single collateral mortgage in favour of BNS against title to the applicants’ property in Richmond Hill, Ontario. Pursuant to the Personal Credit Agreement, default under either of the credit line or the mortgage would trigger a default under both accounts, causing all amounts owing to BNS, including principal, interest and other costs and charges, to become due and payable to BNS immediately. BNS would additionally be entitled to quiet possession of the property. On February 22, 2012, Mr. Kakoutis attempted to make payment of $1,188 on the Scotialine account because it was in default. The applicants maintained that this payment was made in cash and that the teller had either lost or stolen this payment. BNS stated that there was no evidence that a cash payment was made but that an attempt was made to make the payment from the applicants’ deposit account. Due to the teller’s error the transaction had no effect. The applicants made their last payment of $593 on March 1, 2012. BNS served the applicants with a Notice of Sale Under Mortgage on February 1, 2013. They remained in possession of the property. The applicants made a claim against BNS for damages of $1,235,965 and also claimed that their obligations to BNS were nullified, as a result of the alleged theft or loss. BNS counterclaimed for the outstanding amounts owing on the Scotialine and mortgage loan and for possession of the mortgaged property. BNS brought a motion for summary judgment, dismissing the applicants’ claim and for summary judgment on its counterclaim. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Applicants’ claim and motion for summary judgment and granted the Respondent’s counter-claim and motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Applicants’ appeal.
36847 Rosa Everett, Keith Merasty, Rosa Everett as litigation guardian of Precious Everett-Scott, Rosa Everett as litigation guardian of Lucas Scott and Rosa Everett as litigation guardian of Brandon Scott v. Keith McCaskill, City of Winnipeg
Torts — Police — Searches — Warrantless searches
The applicants had six unrelated encounters with members of the Winnipeg Police Service between April 4, 2010, and September 30, 2010. Specifically, they complain that, on April 4, Precious Scott-Everett (12) and Keith were detained without reasonable grounds for administrative reasons, that no investigation of Keith or Precious occurred, and that the detention was not brief; that Precious was denied right to counsel; and that the search was not exigent and there weren’t grounds for warrant; on July 17, a search was not justified by exigent circumstances, and the Court of Appeal failed to correctly count the warrantless incursions into the home; on July 28, a warrantless search was based on third party consent, and detaining Brandon Scott “to calm matters down” was not lawful; and on September 28, 29 and 30, warrantless searches conducted were based on third party consent. The applicants filed a statement of claim alleging that the entries, searches and detentions were unlawful; false imprisonment, battery, trespass and violation of privacy under the Privacy Act, C.C.S.M. c. P125; and breach of their rights under ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter. They sought general, aggravated and punitive damages, and damages under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The claim and the subsequent appeal were both dismissed.
36871 Nadejda Aletkina v. Hospital for Sick Children
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom – Civil procedure
The applicant, Ms. Aletkina, was employed at the Hospital for Sick Children, the respondent, from 2002 to 2003. In 2009, the applicant began an action against the respondent for wrongful dismissal. An interlocutory motion and its appeal were dismissed by the lower courts and the applicant requested a stay of the decision and for an order that she undergo capacity assessment. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all the Applicant’s motions.
36926 Angelina Bailey v. Estate of Gerald Harry Barbour
Property – Real Property – Adverse Possession
The applicant Mrs. Bailey claimed possessory title to a portion of the property owned by the late Mr. Barbour. The property in question includes a lake beachfront and part of an isthmus, owned by Mr. Barbour, which joins the beach to an island, owned by Mrs. Bailey. During the periods of low water levels, the owners of the island reached the island by foot and sometimes by motor vehicle over a strip of land descending over Mr. Barbour’s beach and isthmus. During the periods of high water levels, the owners of the island travelled there from the beach by boat, parking their motor vehicles on the property that they owned on the mainland. Before 1995, Mr. Babour did not object to the owners of the island using his property that way.
In 1995, Mr. Barbour requested that Mrs. Bailey pay him a licence fee for travel over his property. Mrs. Bailey objected. The dispute over the property in question ultimately went to trial. Mrs. Bailey asserted her rights by way of adverse possession, prescriptive easement, easement of necessity and proprietary estoppel claims, among others. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the action in favour of the applicant. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part.
36876 Raynald Grenier v. Attorney General of Canada for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Administrative law – Judicial review
The applicant’s income was from various sources, including medicine and farming. The respondent, the Canada Revenue Agency, determined that his chief source of income was neither farming nor a combination of farming and some other source of income. In 2013, the respondent denied a request for tax relief for the 1981 to 2007, 2010 and 2011 taxation years. The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision and submitted constitutional questions, including with regard to the validity of s. 31 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). However, the Federal Court did not address those questions, since it allowed the respondent’s motion to strike, finding that the application for judicial review had no reasonable chance of success. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.