APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ALLOWED

38066

Ville de Montréal v. Octane Stratégie inc. (QC)

Municipal law – Contracts for services

To prepare for the launch of its transportation plan, Ville de Montréal (City) retained Octane Stratégie inc. (Octane), a public relations and communications firm, not long before the planned launch date of May 17, 2007. Representatives of Octane attended a meeting at city hall on April 27, 2007 with officials and political representatives from the City. At that meeting, Richard Thériault, the director of communications and administration in the office of the mayor and the executive committee, is alleged to have awarded four mandates to Octane, two of which involved preparing the concept for the launch and organizing the event. To fulfill its mandate to organize the event, Octane hired Productions Gilles Blais. Between April 30 and May 17, Octane sent the City various scenarios and budget estimates relating to the organization of the event. The final estimate dated May 15, 2007 forecast fees, costs and disbursements totalling $123,470. Following the event, Octane sent three invoices on June 4, 2007 that were paid in March and April 2008. A final invoice for $82,898.63 ($72,500 plus taxes), which corresponded to the services of Productions Gilles Blais, was sent to the City on October 27, 2009. On May 13, 2010, Octane, having not yet been paid, renewed its request for payment by the City. On May 14, it filed a motion to institute proceedings in order to preserve its rights against the City. On July 9, 2010, Octane, still not having been paid, finally served its motion to institute proceedings on the City. On October 6, 2011, Octane sent Mr. Thériault a formal notice to pay it the amount of $82,898.63. Octane amended its motion to institute proceedings on November 22, 2011 to add Mr. Thériault as a defendant. The Superior Court granted Octane’s motion to institute proceedings and ordered the City to pay $82,898.63 plus interest and the additional indemnity. The alternative motion to institute proceedings against Mr. Thériault was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Octane’s appeal against Mr. Thériault was declared to be moot. The reasons for judgment were written by Mainville J.A. Hogue and J.A. wrote reasons concurring in the result.

38073

Octane Stratégie inc. v. Richard Thériault and Ville de Montréal (QC)

Municipal law – Contracts for services

To prepare for the launch of its transportation plan, Ville de Montréal (City) retained Octane Stratégie inc. (Octane), a public relations and communications firm, not long before the planned launch date of May 17, 2007. Representatives of Octane attended a meeting at city hall on April 27, 2007 with officials and political representatives from the City. At that meeting, Richard Thériault, the director of communications and administration in the office of the mayor and the executive committee, is alleged to have awarded four mandates to Octane, two of which involved preparing the concept for the launch and organizing the event. To fulfill its mandate to organize the event, Octane hired Productions Gilles Blais. Between April 30 and May 17, Octane sent the City various scenarios and budget estimates relating to the organization of the event. The final estimate dated May 15, 2007 forecast fees, costs and disbursements totalling $123,470. Following the event, Octane sent three invoices on June 4, 2007 that were paid in March and April 2008. A final invoice for $82,898.63 ($72,500 plus taxes), which corresponded to the services of Productions Gilles Blais, was sent to the City on October 27, 2009. On May 13, 2010, Octane, having not yet been paid, renewed its request for payment by the City. On May 14, it filed a motion to institute proceedings in order to preserve its rights against the City. On July 9, 2010, Octane, still not having been paid, finally served its motion to institute proceedings on the City. On October 6, 2011, Octane sent Mr. Thériault a formal notice to pay it the amount of $82,898.63. Octane amended its motion to institute proceedings on November 22, 2011 to add Mr. Thériault as a defendant. The Superior Court granted Octane’s motion to institute proceedings and ordered the City to pay $82,898.63 plus interest and the additional indemnity. The alternative motion to institute proceedings against Mr. Thériault was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Octane’s appeal against Mr. Thériault was declared to be moot. The reasons for judgment were written by Mainville J.A. Hogue and J.A. wrote reasons concurring in the result.

38004

Her Majesty the Queen v. Albert Penunsi (NL)

Criminal law – Judicial interim release

An RCMP officer laid an information pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code, stating that he had reason to believe that the respondent “will commit a serious personal injury offence.” At the time that this information was laid the respondent was serving a sentence and was expected to be released on December 5, 2014. An arrest warrant was issued, but was never executed. The Provincial Court judge held that s. 515 of the Criminal Code (JIR provisions) do not apply to s. 810.2 Criminal Code applications and he did not have the jurisdiction to have the respondent arrested or impose conditions on his release. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing in the Supreme Court Trial Division (General), the respondent entered into the s. 810.2 of the Code recognizance by consent. Goodridge J. held that s. 515 of the Code applied to s. 810.2 of the Code applications and that the judge erred by refusing to conduct a show cause hearing on the Crown’s request. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal and held that s. 515 of the Code does not apply to s. 810.2 peace bond proceedings.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

38124

George Georgiou v. Attorney General of Canada (Ont.)

Criminal law – Proceeds of Crime

In 2010, an American jury convicted the applicant of conspiracy and fraud. The applicant was sentenced to 30 years in prison and ordered to pay both restitution and a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $26 million USD, representing his interest in the property derived from the proceeds of his offences. In 2012, American authorities discovered an account in the name of Mr. Emanuel at a branch of the Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) in Milton, Ontario, containing $9.2 million CAD, and believed that it in fact belonged to Mr. Georgiou. On September 21, 2012, Justice Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an order restraining the funds in the RBC account as substitute assets (the “Kelly Order”) until further order of that court. It was issued on the basis that the $26 million forfeiture money judgment against Mr. Georgiou remained outstanding and the property derived from the proceeds of his offences could not be located. American authorities then requested Canada’s assistance in enforcing the Kelly Order. In 2012, Forestell J. authorized the Kelly Order to be filed and entered as a judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice pursuant to ss. 9.3(1) and (2) of the Act. Under s. 9.3(4)(d) of the Act, Forestell J. ordered that the Kelly Order could be enforced as if it were made under s. 490.8(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, C. c-46 . Mr. Georgiou moved to set aside Forestell J.’s order. Then, the respondent moved to have Mr. Georgiou’s motion summarily dismissed. The motion judge granted the respondent’s motion for summary dismissal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.