36321    Udell So v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law — Evidence

On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Alberta. The applicant consumed nine alcoholic drinks between 18:00 and 02:00, followed by two slices of pizza. The applicant burped in the police car and in the holding room before each breath test, in each case unnoticed by the police.  Sampling was not additionally delayed as a consequence.  The Certificate of Analysis on his breath, sampled at 04:10 and 04:35, reported 140 mg/100 ml and 130 mg/100 ml of blood alcohol respectively.  The applicant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding .08.  His conviction appeal was dismissed by the summary conviction appeal judge.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

36379    Larry Peter Klippenstein v. Manitoba Ombudsman

Charter of Rights — Rights to fundamental justice and equality

On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Manitoba. Mr. Klippenstein brought an action against the respondent in 2013, alleging that he had been a victim of a crime on two occasions while riding a transit bus.  He filed a complaint with the Ombudsman requesting information under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, C.C.S.M., c. F175 with respect to the two incidents.  He was not satisfied with the Ombudsman’s investigations because they did not lead to prosecutions.  In his action, Mr. Klippenstein alleged that the Ombudsman had acted in bad faith.  The Ombudsman moved to stay the action. The Court of Appeal of Manitoba dismissed the applicant’s motion for recusal and motion to have litigation guardian appointed and stayed the applicant’s three appeals until further order of the court.

36233   La Presse, ltée v. Guy Drouin, et al.

This is an application for leave to appeal an order made in a criminal case prohibiting publication, broadcasting and transmission.

36286    Frank Antoine Joseph v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law — First degree murder — Charge to jury

On appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. The applicant, Mr. Joseph, was convicted of first degree murder.  While the victim was sitting outside with some friends, an individual approached to about 10 metres away, put on gloves, greeted the victim, took out a sawed‑off shotgun, shot the victim in the head and fled.  The shooter’s identity was a key issue for the outcome of the trial.  The jury was satisfied from the identification evidence, the testimony on the facts and the evidence relating to cell phone calls that Mr. Joseph had committed the crime.  On appeal, Mr. Joseph argued that the trial judge had inadequately instructed the jury on the dangers of identification evidence and that the verdict was unreasonable.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36326   A.K. v. Batshaw Youth and Family Centers

Civil procedure — Appeals

On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Quebec. In 2002, the Court of Quebec determined that Mr. K.’s child had been sexually abused by him and that the security and development of the children of the couple was compromised.  Their care was entrusted to their mother, Ms. A., and to the respondent Batshaw Youth and Family Centers.  Mr. K. was subsequently acquitted of seven charges of sexual assault.  The children are now teenagers or adults in their 20s living with Ms. A.

Mr. K. sued Batshaw and Ms. A. for damages, alleging that Ms. A. had physically, emotionally and sexually abused the couple’s children between 1999 and 2001, that Batshaw and Ms. A. encouraged the children to make up stories about physical and sexual abuse by Mr. K., which Batshaw then used to maliciously prosecute Mr. K. in civil and criminal court, that Batshaw misled the professionals hired to assess the validity of the sexual abuse allegations, that Batshaw destroyed documents and denied him access to its files, and that the respondents were engaged in a large scale frame-up.  He claimed over $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

The Superior Court dismissed the claim.  The Court of Appeal granted a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that an appeal would have no reasonable chance of success in this case.

36250    Ayanle Omar v. Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Criminal law — Appeals — Interlocutory orders — Disclosure

On appeal from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This leave application relates to charges stemming from an investigation called “Project Traveller”, conducted by the Toronto Police Service Guns and Gangs Unit.  The investigation targeted an alleged street gang known as the Dixon Road Bloods.  In 2012, at the conclusion of the investigation, the police arrested nearly fifty people and charged them with offences relating to being members of a criminal organization.  For trial management purposes, those charged were subdivided into six separate prosecutions.  The federal Crown has carriage of some prosecutions and the provincial Crown has carriage of others. Both the federal and provincial Crowns are respondents here.

The investigation involved two wiretap authorizations to intercept private communications and during the pre-trial proceedings, the applicant, Mr. Omar, requested disclosure of the information to obtain them (the “ITO”).  When the Crown disclosed only part of ITO, Mr. Omar applied to the Superior Court for an order, but it ruled against him.

36303   Sweetgrass First Nation v. Rath & Company

Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors

On appeal from the court of Appeal of Alberta. The applicant, Sweetgrass First Nation, retained the respondent law firm, Rath & Company, for a variety of legal matters over several years.  After retaining other lawyers, Sweetgrass sought to review a number of Rath & Company's accounts, including one covered by a written contingency fee agreement and eight other accounts for which there was no written retainer.  The Review Officer granted significant reductions on most of the accounts, including the amount billed on the contingency fee account which was reduced by over 60%.  Rath & Company brought an appeal from the Review Officer’s assessment in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, requesting that the accounts be allowed in full or, in the alternative, that the accounts be sent back to be reviewed by another Review Officer.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench allowed the respondent’s appeal of the Review Officer’s assessment, ordering a re-hearing before another Review Officer.  The majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal in part, restoring the Review Officer’s assessment for two of the lawyer’s accounts and ordering a re-hearing on the remainder of the accounts.

36358   T.M. v. Her Majesty the Queen

Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Evidence

The trial judge accepted the complainants’ evidence and gave reasons why he found each of them credible.  The trial judge concluded that he did not believe the applicant and that his evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.  The applicant was convicted of sexual assault.  His conviction appeal was dismissed.

36339   Martin Green v. Hiep Tram, et al.

Civil Procedure — Summary judgment

On appeal from the Court of Appeal of Manitoba. In November 2011, the applicant, Martin Green, was removed from his student teacher practicum at Gordon Bell High School in Winnipeg.  The respondent, Hiep Tram, was a Gordon Bell High School teacher who supervised Mr. Green for one course and the respondent, Arlene Skull, was the principal.  Subsequently, for his conduct as a student teacher and other reasons, Mr. Green was suspended from his studies at the University of Winnipeg teacher certification program.  He blames the respondents for this, claiming they conspired together to injure him by depriving him of his opportunity to become a certified teacher.  He further alleges that Mr. Tram and Ms. Skull defamed him. 

A Master of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench granted the respondents’ (Tram and Skull) motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.  A judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the applicant’s appeal and dismissed the action.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.