36481   Allan Jeffery Harris v. Her Majesty the Queen

Civil procedure – Time

The applicant had been issued a permit that allowed him to grow and use marijuana for personal, medicinal purposes. The grower permit regime was replaced in April, 2014 and thereafter permit-holders were required to purchase marijuana from licensed commercial producers. Many of those permit-holders commenced actions in the Federal Court, challenging the new legislative provisions. All of the actions except one were stayed and it proceeded to trial. Some of those plaintiffs were also granted interlocutory injunctive relief, exempting them from the new regime. The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the December 30, 2014 Federal Court order in the related case. The Federal Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory exemption from provisions ofMarijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s motion for extension of time.

36483   Colleen Margaret Abbott v. Her Majesty the Queen

Civil procedure – Time

The applicant had been issued a permit that allowed her to grow and use marijuana for personal, medicinal purposes. The grower permit regime was replaced in April, 2014 and thereafter permit-holders were required to purchase marijuana from licensed commercial producers. Many of those permit-holders commenced actions in the Federal Court, challenging the new legislative provisions. All of the actions except one were stayed and it proceeded to trial. Some of those plaintiffs were also granted interlocutory injunctive relief, exempting them from the new regime.  The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the December 30, 2014 Federal Court order in the related case. The Federal Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction or interlocutory constitutional exemption from provisions of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s motion for extension of time.

36519   Arthur Jackes v. Her Majesty the Queen

Civil procedure – Time

The applicant had been issued a permit that allowed him to grow and use marijuana for personal, medicinal purposes. The grower permit regime was replaced in April, 2014 and thereafter permit-holders were required to purchase marijuana from licensed commercial producers. Many of those permit-holders commenced actions in the Federal Court, challenging the new legislative provisions. All of the actions except one were stayed and it proceeded to trial. Some of those plaintiffs were also granted interlocutory injunctive relief, exempting them from the new regime.  The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the December 30, 2014 Federal Court order in the related case. The Federal Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction or interlocutory constitutional exemption from provisions of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s motion for extension of time.

36560   Wojciech Jerry Krzyz v. Her Majesty the Queen

Civil procedure – Time

The applicant had been issued a permit that allowed him to grow and use marijuana for personal, medicinal purposes. The grower permit regime was replaced in April, 2014 and thereafter permit-holders were required to purchase marijuana from licensed commercial producers. Many of those permit-holders commenced actions in the Federal Court, challenging the new legislative provisions. All of the actions except one were stayed and it proceeded to trial. Some of those plaintiffs were also granted interlocutory injunctive relief, exempting them from the new regime.  The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the December 30, 2014 Federal Court order in the related case. The Federal Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction or interlocutory constitutional exemption from provisions of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s motion for extension of time.

36561  Urszula Krzyz v. Her Majesty the Queen

Civil procedure – Time

The applicant had been issued a permit that allowed her to grow and use marijuana for personal, medicinal purposes. The grower permit regime was replaced in April, 2014 and thereafter permit-holders were required to purchase marijuana from licensed commercial producers. Many of those permit-holders commenced actions in the Federal Court, challenging the new legislative provisions. All of the actions except one were stayed and it proceeded to trial. Some of those plaintiffs were also granted interlocutory injunctive relief, exempting them from the new regime. The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the December 30, 2014 Federal Court order in the related case. The Federal Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for interlocutory injunction or interlocutory constitutional exemption from provisions of Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s motion for extension of time.

36525   Michael Joseph Wilson v. Her Majesty the Queen

Appeal – Extension of time – Criminal Law – Evidence

Mr. Wilson was charged with two counts of first degree murder. The Crown’s case relied in part on incriminating statements made by Mr. Wilson during a Mr. Big operation. At trial, Mr. Wilson testified that the Mr. Big statements were lies and his uncle shot the victims without his assistance or encouragement. Mr. Wilson was convicted by Martinson J., in part based on the Mr. Big evidence. On July 31, 2014, the Court released judgment addressing Mr. Big statements in R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52. On December 3, 2014, Mr. Wilson sought leave to appeal his convictions, relying in part on the analysis in Hart to argue that his Mr. Big statements should have been excluded from evidence. Saunders J.A. denied an extension of time to appeal. The Supreme Court of British Columbia convicted on two counts of first degree murder. The Court of Appeal of British Columbia dismissed the Application for extension of time.

36517   Michele Fiorilli v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law – Sentencing

The applicant was convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 for two residential real estate mortgage frauds. The applicant was sentenced to one year imprisonment; a restitution order of $213,084.61 and a fine of $110,000.00, in lieu of forfeiture, with six years to pay. The applicant appealed the sentence. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the sentence and dismissed the sentence appeal.

36492   AXA General Insurance v. Ian Tucker

Insurance law – Automobile insurance policies

Ian Tucker sustained injuries when he was struck by a vehicle while a pedestrian, on October 13, 2007. The vehicle did not stop, and its owner or driver have never been identified. Mr. Tucker held a standard automobile insurance contract with AXA General Insurance (“AXA”). The contract contained the mandatory Section D endorsement, which provides coverage for all sums an insured is legally entitled to recover as damages resulting from an accident involving an owner or driver of an unidentified automobile. On October 13, 2009, Mr. Tucker filed a negligence action against Unknown Person. This suit has never been served. On November 18, 2010, Mr. Tucker presented a demand to AXA claiming recovery of damages for his injuries. On November 18, 2011, Mr. Tucker filed an action against AXA, alleging that AXA was in breach of Section D and seeking recovery of his claim for damages. AXA subsequently applied to the court for dismissal of the latter contract action on the basis that it was commenced after the limitation period expired, while Mr. Tucker applied to add AXA as a defendant in the tort action.

The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Trial Division, dismissed Mr. Tucker's contract action against AXA on the basis that it was filed after the applicable limitation period had expired. That court also dismissed Mr. Tucker’s application to add AXA as a defendant in the tort action. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Tucker’s appeal in the contract action and reinstated that action against AXA (Rowe J.A. dissenting).

36553   Dragoljub Milunovic v. Yves Bélanger, Bélanger Sauvé, G.P.

Law of professions – Lawyer – Professional liability

The applicant is challenging the decisions of the courts below finding that his lawyer did not commit any fault by withholding and appropriating part of the amounts held in trust that were owed to him as a result of the settlement of a case. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application and the Quebec Court of Appeal refused leave.

36512   Jason Steven Philip v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law — Second degree murder — Defense

After drinking all night, the applicant, Mr. Philip, stabbed his aunt 30 times in the head, neck and chest. He then hid her body, cleaned the kitchen and used a false name to take a taxi to the bus station where he purchased a one-way ticket out of town. Later, Mr. Philip admitted to his mother stabbing the victim, but alleged he blacked out. In considering the defense of intoxication, the trial judge found that Mr. Philip was capable of forming an intent to murder and that his impairment did not affect his ability to foresee consequences. Mr. Philip was therefore convicted of second degree murder and his appeal against conviction was dismissed.

36371    Wael Maged Badawy v. Ghada Hamdy Nafie

Charter of Rights – Family law – Divorce

The parties were married in Egypt in 2000. Each had been resident in Alberta before the wedding. The parties have three children who all reside with their mother. She filed a Statement of Claim for Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property in July 2012. Mr. Badawy filed a Counterclaim for Divorce and Division of Matrimonial Property, alleging that neither party had been ordinarily resident in Alberta in the year preceding the filing of Ms. Nafie’s action. Ms. Nafie obtained several interim orders in her proceedings including custody, child support and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and vehicle. Mr. Badawy appealed the interim orders, challenging the validity of the underlying divorce action on the basis that Ms. Nafie had not satisfied the residency requirements at the time of filing her action. He also challenged the constitutionality of the Judicial Dispute Resolution process in which the parties had participated. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta ordered that marriage was valid and that Alberta courts had jurisdiction over parties’ divorce proceedings. The Court of Appeal of Alberta ordered that Alberta courts did not have jurisdiction over divorce proceedings but preserving certain interim orders nunc pro tunc.

36510    Robbie Richard Erasmo v. Attorney General of Canada

Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Right to liberty

The applicant brought an application for judicial review submitting that the merger provisions under s. 743.5(1) of the Criminal Code and s. 139(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act offend his Charter rights and cannot be saved pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter. The Federal Court judge dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs.

36534     Oda Kagimbi v. Attorney General of Canada

Labour relations – Grievances – Judicial review

On December 19, 2006, the applicant was hired as a correctional officer for an indeterminate period. The employment was subject to a 12-month probationary period. During that period, the employer decided to reject the applicant because of her unsatisfactory performance. The applicant filed a grievance against her rejection, asking for reinstatement in her position and reimbursement of the salary and benefits owed to her as well as damages incurred. The Public Service Labour Relations Board adjudicator found that the applicant had been on probation when she was rejected and that her employer had established unequivocally that it believed she was incapable of performing the duties of a correctional officer. The adjudicator also found that the rejection on probation had not been a sham to camouflage another reason for dismissal. The adjudicator stated that his role was limited to making those determinations and that he therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the grievance on the merits. The Federal Court dismissed the Application for judicial review. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal.

36325    Ariston Realty Corp. v. Elcarim Inc., Elcarim E Legna Inc., and Elaine Wai Mascall

Contracts – Restitution – Property

The respondent, Elcarim Inc., and the applicant, Ariston Realty, entered into a listing agreement for the sale of a property owned by Elcarim. The agreement contained a holdover clause in which Elcarim agreed to pay Ariston a commission on completion of any sale effected within six months after the expiry of the agreement with any party to whom Ariston or co-operating brokers introduced to the property during the term of the agreement, provided Ariston notified Elcarim in writing prior to the expiry of the agreement of the name of the party introduced. During the term of the listing agreement, Ariston introduced Context Development Inc., the eventual purchaser of the property, however Ariston never provided Elcarim with written notification. Three and one-half months after the expiry of the listing agreement, Context signed an agreement of purchase and sale with Elcarim for the property. After the sale closed, Ariston submitted an invoice to Elcarim for commission on the sale. Elcarim did not pay the invoice and Ariston commenced an action for payment.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed Ariston Realty’s action, awarding $120,375.00 for unpaid commission, and dismissed the respondents’ counterclaim. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal and allowed the applicant’s cross-appeal in part, with costs of $20,000 and $130,000 to the respondents for the appeal and trial respectively.