36967 Camarin Limited v. Swiss Reinsurance Company, Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc., Aon Limited, Aon Global Risk Consultants Limited and Alexander Howden Limited
- and between -
Camarin Limited v. Swiss Reinsurance Company, Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc., Aon Limited, Aon Global Risk Consultants Limited and Alexander Howden Limited
Insurance – Liability insurance
The applicant Camarin Limited (“Camarin”) reinsured 50 percent of an umbrella policy issued to the insured by the main insurer. The respondent Swiss Reinsurance Company (“Swiss Re”), in turn, reinsured one hundred percent of Camarin’s limits.
The main insurer contributed to settlement in a product liability class action against the insured and sought contribution from Camarin for the excess liability. When Camarin turned to Swiss Re for an indemnity, Swiss Re declined to indemnify Camarin and commenced an action seeking rescission of the reinsurance policies with Camarin. Swiss Re asserted that the insured failed to disclose material information about its knowledge of resulting damage claims in each policy year. Swiss Re asserted that such information was material to the risk it had insured, and if disclosed, would have rendered the policy voidable. Camarin counterclaimed for judgment on the policies and sued Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc. (“Aon”) by way of a third party claim. Camarin asserted that Aon was negligent in placing the reinsurance policies with Swiss Re without a “follow the settlements” clause. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the main claim, allowed the counter-claim and allowed the third-party claim conditionally. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.
36943 Joey John Toutsaint v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Sentencing
The parties agreed that the offence of robbery pursuant to s. 344 of the Criminal Code for which Mr. Toutsaint was convicted is a “serious personal injury offence.” The Crown applied to have the applicant declared a dangerous offender under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code. The sentencing judge found that the statutory criteria were met. The applicant was declared a dangerous offender and was sentenced to a determinate sentence of three years and a long-term supervision order of five years. The Crown appeal was allowed and an indeterminate sentence was imposed.
36946 Jaamiah Al Uloom Al Islamiyyah Ontario v. Minister of National Revenue (Canada Revenue Agency)
Taxation – Charitable status
The applicant is an Islamic organization that runs a secular and religious boarding school and a mosque that had been registered as a charity since 1992. It was audited for its 2007 and 2008 taxation years. The Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) issued a Notice of Intention to Revoke (“NIR”) the registration of the applicant under the Act on the basis that it had failed to comply with the necessary requirements to maintain its registration. The Minister found that the applicant had failed to maintain adequate books, records and source documents to support its revenue, expenditures, liabilities, donation receipts, allocation amount for school fees and reimbursement claims. Further the applicant was found to have improperly issued receipts for gifts and failed to file information returns, T-4s and T-4As as and when required. The applicant objected to the NIR and made submissions to the Appeals Division. The NIR was confirmed. The applicant appealed that decision. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36933 Rocco Galati v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, His Excellency the Right Honourable Governor General David Johnston, the Honourable Marc Nadon, Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice
- and between -
Constitutional Rights Centre Inc. v. Right Honourable Stephen Harper, His Excellency the Right Honourable Governor General David Johnston, the Honourable Marc Nadon, Judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Justice
Constitutional law – Civil procedure – Costs
The applicants, Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre Inc., brought an application in the Federal Court to challenge the appointment of the Honourable Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada. Shortly thereafter, the Governor in Council referred two questions relating to the challenged appointment to this Court. On motion by the Attorney General of Canada, the application was stayed on consent, pending the release of this Court’s decision inReference re Supreme Court Act, ss. 5 and 6, 2014 SCC 21,  1 S.C.R. 433. Both applicants were granted intervener status and appeared at the hearing of the Reference.
Following the release of this Court’s decision in the Reference, the applicants brought identical motions seeking a declaration that where a private citizen brings a constitutional challenge to legislation and/or executive action, going to the “architecture of the Constitution”, from which he/she derives no personal benefit, per se, and is successful on the constitutional challenge, that he/she is entitled to solicitor-client costs of those proceedings, as to deny those costs constitutes a breach of the constitutional right to a fair and independent judiciary. The Federal Court dismissed the Application and dismissed the cost motions. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36881 Wayne Ferron v. Peel Regional Police Services
- and between -
Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General, John Gerretsen, Arlene Gorewicz, Santiago Orbe, Joy Webster
- and between -
Wayne Ferron v. Ministry of the Attorney General, John Gerretsen, Sandra Theroulde, Gail Hugh, Desire Viceral
Appeals — Boards and tribunals — Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
On September 20, 2012, Mr. Ferron filed an application before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal alleging that he was denied services at the respondents’ emergency shelter as retaliation for a civil action against them for earlier events. In an Interim Decision, dated September 13, 2013, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil action finding that the two proceedings were inter-related. On July 17 and on October 14, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to Mr. Ferron asking him to confirm the status of the civil action. He did not respond to this correspondence. On October 21, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the parties to confirm that Mr. Ferron had attended at the Tribunal’s offices and advised that the civil action was ongoing and accordingly, the Tribunal would continue to defer the application. Months later, on March 21, 2015, Mr. Ferron filed a request for the Tribunal to reactivate the application. On August 7, 2015, the Tribunal denied the request because of the lengthy delay and dismissed the application. Mr. Ferron filed a request for reconsideration, which the Tribunal dismissed on October 29, 2015. The
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario deferred the application pending completion of applicant’s civil action. The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.
36837 Ting-Sheng Chao v. Chi-Wei Lin
Loans – Loan of money – Usurious interest rates
The respondent loaned an amount of money to the applicant in 2007. In July 2008, an acknowledgement of debt was signed by both parties, in which it was acknowledged that the applicant owed the respondent $51,300.00. The courts below confirmed this debt and ordered the applicant to pay it.
The applicant disputes the validity of the loan on the basis that its interest rate is usurious. She also disputes the validity of the acknowledgement of debt on the basis that it was signed under compulsion and therefore without free and enlightened consent. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36964 Jamil Jacek Haidari v. Her Majesty the Queen
Civil procedure – Pleadings – Time
The applicant, Mr. Haidari, commenced an action in the Federal Court, asserting various claims against the respondent federal Crown. The respondent moved to strike Mr. Haidari’s statement of claim, without leave to amend. The Federal Court granted the motion to strike. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.