37056  Jessica Leblanc v. Her Majesty the Queen

(FC)

Constitutional law – Constitutional proceedings – Appeals and judicial review

Since February 2014, approximately 300 self-represented plaintiffs, including the applicant, have filed identical claims seeking declarations that the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (“MMAR”), S.O.R./2001-227, which were repealed on March 31, 2014 and the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, S.O.R./2013-119, which succeeded the MMAR are unconstitutional. In the course of their actions, twenty-six plaintiffs, including the applicant, brought motions for interim constitutional exemptions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act(“CDSA”) for the personal use of marijuana pending trial of their actions. The Federal Court dismissed the motion for interim constitutional exemptions from provisions of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

37057  Luc Leblanc v. Her Majesty the Queen

(FC)

Constitutional law – Constitutional proceedings – Appeals and judicial review

Since February 2014, approximately 300 self-represented plaintiffs, including the applicant, have filed identical claims seeking declarations that the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (“MMAR”), S.O.R./2001-227, which were repealed on March 31, 2014 and the Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, S.O.R./2013-119, which succeeded the MMAR are unconstitutional. In the course of their actions, twenty-six plaintiffs, including the applicant, brought motions for interim constitutional exemptions from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act(“CDSA”) for the personal use of marijuana pending trial of their actions. The Federal Court dismissed the motion for interim constitutional exemptions from provisions of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

37029  A.G.F. v. S.C.

(Que.)

Civil procedure – Disqualification of counsel

In family proceedings for a review of child custody, the applicant presented a motion for the disqualification of counsel for the respondent. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for disqualification of counsel. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

37019  National Hockey League v. Dean Warren, Ontario Labour Relations Board

(Ont.)

Administrative law – Appeals – Standard of review

The respondent Warren was a referee employed by the National Hockey League (the “League”) from 1998 to 2008. He was terminated in April 2008 for “substandard performance”, and the League offered to pay him severance if he signed a release waiving all claims. The respondent did not sign the release and unsuccessfully brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) alleging an unfair labour practice and seeking reinstatement. After exhausting his avenues of appeal, the respondent signed the release but the League refused to pay severance on the basis that he had waived his right to it pursuant to the collective agreement.

The respondent brought an application before the Board under s. 96 of theLabour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1 Sch. A (the “Act”) challenging the League’s decision and alleging discrimination against him for having brought the previous application. He argued that the refusal to pay severance was in breach of ss. 70, 72 and 76 of the Act and that reliance on s. 13(i) of the collective agreement to deny severance was inconsistent with s. 87(1) of the Act. The League brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as unduly delayed and barred by res judicata, issue estoppel and abuse of process. Finding that Mr. Warren’s claim had crystallized in 2008, the Board granted the League’s motion and dismissed the respondent’s application for undue delay. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court granted Mr. Warren’s application for judicial review, quashed the Board’s decision and remitted the matter to the Board for determination. A motion for leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario was denied.

37065  Lucyna Blicharz v. Settlement Lenders Inc., Settlement Lenders of Canada Inc.

(Alta.)

Civil procedure — Appeals — Leave to appeal

In 2007 and 2008, Ms. Blicharz executed three promissory notes in favour of Settlement Lenders Inc. and Settlement Lenders of Canada Inc. (collectively, “Settlement Lenders”), who lend money to people pursuing legal actions. At the time, she was the plaintiff in five personal injury actions, and she was represented by counsel when she signed the notes.  Settlement Lenders issued a statement of claim alleging that Ms. Blicharz had defaulted on all three loans. It was served on Ms. Blicharz, but she did not file a statement of defence and default judgment was granted. Ten months later, Ms. Blicharz applied to set aside the default judgment. After Settlement Lenders set out the basis for its interest calculations, the application was dismissed on the grounds that she did not have an arguable defence and had not moved promptly to reopen the judgment. Four months later, Ms. Blicharz attempted to file a notice of appeal, and was informed an extension of time would be required. Four months later, she applied for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal and her appeal record. Around the same time, the appeal was struck for failure to file the appeal record. The matter was then adjourned twice, once on the condition that any further applications be filed by January 18, 2016. When the matter came forward six months later, a request for a further adjournment was denied, as were the motions to extend time to file the notice of appeal and the appeal record. The appellate judge also determined that the appeal could not be restored. The same appellate judge denied Ms. Blicharz’s application for leave to appeal that decision to a panel of three judges.

36830  Chicago Title Insurance Company of Canada v. Paul MacDonald, Stefanie MacDonald

(Ont.)

Contracts – Commercial contracts – Interpretation

In 2006, the MacDonalds purchased a multi-story home in Toronto and as part of the purchase, also acquired a title insurance policy from Chicago Title Insurance Company of Canada (“Chicago”). In 2013, the MacDonalds discovered that load-bearing walls in the house had been removed during a renovation carried out by the previous owner without a building permit. As a result, the second floor was unsafe and the City of Toronto issued a work order to remedy the problem. The MacDonalds undertook the required temporary work to support the floor then made a claim under the title policy for the costs of the repairs and for the permanent repairs required to make their home structurally sound. Chicago denied the claim based lack of coverage and because the claim was excluded under the terms of that policy. The MacDonalds brought an action seeking, inter alia, declarations of coverage and indemnification and brought a motion for summary judgment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the repondents’ action against title insurer. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Respondents’ appeal.

36959  9256-0929 Québec inc. v. Brigitte Turcot, Martin Roy

- and -

Administrative Labour Tribunal (formerly known as Commission des relations du travail), MNP ltée

(Que.)

Administrative law – Boards and tribunals – Jurisdiction

The Commission des relations du travail found that the respondents had been dismissed without good and sufficient cause and ordered the payment of an indemnity by their employer. However, the employer’s property was sequestrated as a result of financial problems and was eventually sold to the applicant. The respondents filed a motion with the Commission des relations du travail for continuity of the undertaking so the applicant would be required to pay the indemnities owed to them. The Commission des relations du travail dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the motion for judicial review and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.