36482    Luu Hung Viet Derrick, Murray Jamieson v. Wong Tak Man Stephen, Osman Mohammed Arab

Law of professions – Barristers and solicitors – Solicitor-client privilege

The applicant, Mr. Luu, was petitioned into bankruptcy in Hong Kong in February, 2012. He was also involved in litigation in British Columbia and was represented by Murray Jamieson LLP. The respondents were appointed Trustees in the Hong Kong bankruptcy proceedings. In April 2012, Mr. Luu made a solemn affirmation in the bankruptcy proceedings that his assets had a value of $7.15 million. In February, 2013, the Trustees became aware that Mr. Luu had been awarded judgment in excess of US$3 million in the British Columbia action. The Trustees contacted the law firms representing the defendants, advised them of Mr. Luu’s Hong Kong bankruptcy and learned that the law firms had paid the judgment award into the Murray Jamieson trust account, by way of three payments in August and September, 2011 and June, 2012. The Trustees then contacted Murray Jamieson to determine, inter alia, whether the law firm continued to hold any of those monies in their trust account on behalf of Mr. Luu. Murray Jamieson refused to divulge any information on the basis of solicitor-client privilege. The Trustees sought an order requiring the firm to disclose accounting information relating to Mr. Luu. The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted in part the motion to have certain information disclosed. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.

6695     6517633 Canada Ltd. v. Knudsen and Sons Muddy View Ranch Ltd.

Commercial law – Contracts – Damages

Stan Sheppard's company, the Applicant 6517633 Canada Ltd, sued the Respondent Knudsen & Sons Muddy View Ranch Ltd. for breaching a contract whereby the Company had agreed to custom seed 1,050 acres for Knudsen in exchange for a fixed price of $19,293.75. The contract was signed on May 29, 2014. The next evening, Gene Knudsen telephoned Mr. Sheppard to ask if he was prepared to do only a portion of the seeding and to "seed alongside us". Mr. Sheppard made it clear that he considered this to be a breach of the contract but said he would think about it. At around noon the next day, May 31, Mr. Sheppard called Gene Knudsen back and said he was not prepared to compromise his position. Mr. Sheppard then discovered a voicemail message from Gene Knudsen which Mr. Knudsen had left for him earlier in the day. In it, Mr. Knudsen had said, "[W]e got a guy" and had told Mr. Sheppard not to move his equipment to the Knudsen land.  On June 2, after getting advice from his lawyer, Gene Knudsen called Mr. Sheppard and, as found by the trial judge, told Mr. Sheppard that the Company could seed until the job was done. At that point, between 70 and 100 acres had already been seeded. Mr. Sheppard rejected this invitation and sued Knudsen for $19,293.75, the value of the contract. The Provincial Court of Saskatchewan dismissed the appeal from the small claims court. The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan denied leave to appeal.

36663    Martin Ravelo v. CIBC Mortgages Inc., Sherry Harper

           - and between -

              Martin Ravelo v. CIBC Mortgages Inc

Mortgages – Foreclosure – Application to vary

The Applicant, Mr. Ravelo and his spouse, Ms. Harper resided on property near Quesnel.  There was a mobile home on the property.  Mr. Ravelo decided to build a house on the property and commenced construction.  He spent at least $68,000 and in excess of 10,000 hours of his own labour in building the house.  Ms. Harper was granted a mortgage in respect of the property from the Respondent, CIBC Mortgage Inc.  While the mortgage was granted shortly after Mr. Ravelo commenced construction on the house, it was not a construction mortgage, and was not granted in contemplation of the house being built.  Mr. Ravelo and Ms. Harper separated.  Ms. Harper was the sole registered owner of the property, but Mr. Ravelo resided alone on the property.  The house was not complete, such that a sale to anyone but a limited category of purchasers was not possible under the Homeowner Protection Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 31.  Ms. Harper went into bankruptcy and the mortgage fell seriously into arrears.  CIBC Mortgage commenced foreclosure proceedings and obtained an order absolute of foreclosure. The Court of Appeal refused the grant leave to appeal and an application to vary that order was dismissed.

36587    Daniel Marshall v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility

The applicant was convicted of one count of sexual assault. He was sentenced to eight months imprisonment (less six days pretrial custody). The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal; granted leave to appeal sentence, and dismissed the sentence appeal. The application to introduce fresh evidence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

36513   Nidal Joad v. Les Portes et Châssis Eddy Boulet inc.

Civil procedure – Hearing

The applicant applied to the Court of Québec to have his name struck, on the basis of improper use of procedure, from a proceeding in which he was being sued together with Mrs. Cordeau by the respondent, Les Portes et Châssis Eddy Boulet inc. He also asked for the following: [translation] “Condemn counsel for the Respondent to pay Nidal Joad’s costs and also to pay him a minimum of $3,000 and a maximum of $10,000 in punitive and exemplary damages”. The respondent agreed at the hearing to remove the applicant’s name from the proceedings. A motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the issue of costs was dismissed.

36514   Marie-France Cordeau v. Portes et Châssis Eddy Boulet inc.

Civil procedure – Contract – Evidence

The applicant claimed the reimbursement of $10,697 she had paid to the respondent as a deposit under a contract the parties had entered into on August 29, 2012. She also claimed an amount for loss of income and the reimbursement of extrajudicial fees. The respondent denied that the contract had become effective, because the condition for the contract had never materialized. It also claimed indirect damages, namely the reimbursement of its legal fees in light of the rules respecting vexatious litigants, and punitive damages. The Court of Québec dismissed the action. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the Motion for leave to appeal.

36591   Deepan Budlakoti v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Charter of Rights – Constitutional law – Citizenship

The applicant, Deepan Budlakoti, was born in Canada.  His parents were Indian nationals. They all became permanent residents and in 1995 the parents were granted Canadian citizenship. No application for citizenship was made on the applicant’s behalf. While a permanent resident, the applicant was convicted of breaking and entering, weapons trafficking, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and trafficking in narcotics. He was sentenced to three years in jail. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration investigated the applicant’s status, finding him to be a permanent resident, not a Canadian citizen, and declared him to be inadmissible to Canada because of the offences. On that basis, the Immigration and Refugee Board granted the Minister’s application permitting the removal of the applicant from Canada. On the issue of citizenship, the Board found that the applicant was born during his parents’ employment with the Indian High Commission and therefore he was not a citizen under the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29. As a result, the removal order became effective. The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to commence a judicial review of the Board’s decision. The applicant remains in Canada subject to certain bonds and conditions imposed when he was released from custody. He has never applied to the Minister for citizenship under the Citizenship Act on any grounds. Neither has he ever applied for Indian citizenship. In 2013, the applicant applied anew to the Federal Court for a declaration that he is a Canadian citizen.

The Federal Court denied the application for a declaration that the applicant is a Canadian citizen. The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the applicant’s appeal.