36391   Roch Guimont and Constance Guimont v. Her Majesty the Queen

Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – Search and seizure

On appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. The applicants were charged with several offences under s. 45(1)(b) of the Defence Production Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. D‑1, for possessing a controlled good, namely third‑generation night vision goggles, without being registered or exempt from registration, contrary to s. 37 of that Act. They were also charged with several offences under s. 19(1) of theExport and Import Permits Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E‑19, for exporting any goods or technology included in an Export Control List, namely a third‑generation image intensifier, without holding an export permit, contrary to s. 13 of that Act.

Before their trial, the applicants brought a motion for illegal search and for a stay of proceedings in the Superior Court.  The motion was dismissed.  The Court of Appeal then dismissed their application for leave to appeal and their application for certiorari.

36345   Jacques Laperrière v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law — Charge to jury

On appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. The applicant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was convicted of second degree murder in a jury trial. He appealed his conviction, alleging, inter alia, that in instructing the jurors the judge had erred in defining “mental disorder” in relation to the concept of not being criminally responsible and in refusing to put the defence of provocation to the jury.

36290   Attorney General of Canada v. Barreau du Québec - and - Attorney General of Quebec

Civil procedure – Parties – Public interest standing

On appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. On November 23, 2012, through a motion for a declaratory judgment, the Barreau du Québec (the Barreau) asked the Superior Court to determine the constitutionality of several provisions of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, S.C. 2012, c. 1, imposing minimum punishments of imprisonment in criminal cases.  The applicant, the Attorney General of Canada, moved to dismiss the Barreau’s motion on the ground that it did not have sufficient interest to bring those proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36279    9080-9211 Québec Inc. (Les Propriétés Victoria) v. Athena Energy Marketing Inc. (doing business under the trade name RBC Natural Gas Services Inc.), Regroupement Lafar Inc.

Contracts of sale – Damages

On appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. In 2005, the applicant 9080‑9211 Québec Inc. (“Victoria”) entered into a natural gas supply contract with the respondent Athena Energy Marketing Inc. (“Athena”) for its four income properties in Montréal.  Under the contract, Victoria undertook to use and pay for a fixed quantity of natural gas for five years.  In 2006, Victoria sold two of the four properties and its natural gas consumption fell as a result.  In 2009, it sold its last two properties and its consumption fell to zero.  When Victoria stopped paying the bills, Athena brought an action on account to recover the loss it had incurred.  The Superior Court allowed the action.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36344   Michael Panula v. Attorney General of Canada

Administrative law — Judicial review

On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal. The applicant brought a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination against his former employer. The Commission decided not to deal with the applicant’s complaint. The applicant brought an application for judicial review to the Federal Court which was dismissed. The applicant appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. The appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration were both dismissed.

36289    Shin Han F & P Inc. v. Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals

On appeal from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board (“Board”) regulates the development of petroleum resources in the Nova Scotia offshore area. It granted the applicant an exploration license for a parcel of offshore lands based on the amount of expenditure proposed for exploration. Pursuant to the terms of the license, the applicant was required to deposit 25% of the proposed exploration expenditure as security. Failure to do so would result in the cancellation of the license. The applicant failed to make the deposit within the allotted time frame. The Board gave notice of its proposed decision to cancel the exploration license. The legislation provided a mechanism for the person affected to request a hearing before the Oil and Gas Committee (“Committee”). After considering the recommendation of the Committee, in accordance the governing legislation, the Board concluded that the applicant failed to comply with the exploration license and ordered the cancellation of the license and forfeiture of the deposit. The applicant sought judicial review of the Board decision. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia dismissed the application for judicial review and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 

36406    Larry Peter Klippenstein v. Attorney General of Canada

Charter of Rights — Freedom of religion — Civil procedure

On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court issued a direction on October 5, 2012 that Mr. Klippenstein wanted converted into an Order. The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s motion and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36343    Amexon Developments Inc. v. 1465152 Ontario Limited

Leases — Landlord and tenant

On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The applicant, Amexon Developments Inc. (“Amexon”) is the owner and landlord of leased premises located in a large commercial building that it wishes to demolish and redevelop. The respondent, 1465152 Ontario Limited, (the “tenant) is the management company of a law firm that leased its offices from Amexon. The tenant originally entered into the lease with an effective date of April 1, 2000.  The lease did not contain a demolition clause.  That lease was amended and renewed in 2007 for a further term of five years, ending March 31, 2012.  Amexon acquired the property in 2008. The lease was amended in October, 2012 and the term was extended until March, 31, 2016. Amexon later wished to demolish and redevelop the property and was able to negotiate lease termination agreements with all of its tenants with the exception of the respondent tenant. Amexon offered to relocate the law firm into a similar premises in an adjoining building, also owned by Amexon, and to pay compensation. When the negotiations between the parties failed to conclude in a mutually satisfactory agreement, Amexon served the tenant with a Notice to Vacate on February 28, 2014 by August 31, 2014, following which Amexon indicated that it would turn off all services to the building. The tenant applied for a declaration that the Notice to Vacate was void and of no force and effect and for an injunction precluding Amexon from re-entering the premises and terminating services and utilities. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued the declaration. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

36288    1298417 Ontario Ltd. v. Corporation of the Town of Lakeshore

Municipal law – Municipal Services

On appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The Respondent, Town of Lakeshore (“Lakeshore”) and the Applicant, 1298417 Ontario Limited (“129”), a developer, entered into a Subdivision Agreement in which Lakeshore undertook to provide capacity in its sewage system to 129’s proposed development. When Lakeshore provided another developer access to the enhanced sewage capacity prior to the completion of 129’s development, 129 sued Lakeshore for breach of contract. 129 claimed damages stemming from the loss of commercial tenancies to the competing developer.

The trial judge found that by providing the other developer access to the sewer system, Lakeshore breached the Supplementary Agreement. He awarded 129 damages of $2,423,860, based on the profits that the other developer purportedly realized from certain commercial tenancies.  On appeal, Lakeshore argued that the trial judge erred in interpreting the Supplementary Agreement, specifically article 3.1 as prohibiting it from allocating sewage capacity to anyone else pending completion of 129’s subdivision.  Lakeshore submitted that properly interpreted, article 3.1 required it to provide 129 with sufficient capacity to complete its subdivision. The provision read as follows:

The Municipality hereby grants and approves the allocation of additional capacity in the Existing System so as to allow for full development of the St. Clair Shores Subdivision, in compliance with the existing zoning provisions for the said Subdivision. For greater certainty, said additional capacity shall be deemed to have been expressly reserved for the benefit of the St. Clair Shores Subdivision, and the Municipality shall not, prior to completion of full development and build out of residential and commercial buildings in the St. Clair Shores Subdivision, grant and/or approve additional capacity in the Existing System for lands outside of the St. Clair Shores Subdivision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment below and dismissed the action.