SCC No. Case Name Province of Origin Keywords
39616 Joshua Lee Ratt v. Her Majesty the Queen SK Criminal law — Sentencing
39615 Alexandre Bergevin c. Sa Majesté la Reine FederalCourt Taxation — Goods and services tax
39596 Floriano Daponte, et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Criminal law — Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time
39608 Luc LeBlanc v. Her Majesty the Queen NB Charter of Rights — Unreasonable search and seizure
39625 Yochanan Ishakis also known as Jason Ishakis, et al. v. Janet Tutt, et al. ON Civil procedure — Motions
Joshua Lee Ratt v. Her Majesty the Queen(Sask.)
Criminal law — Sentencing — Considerations
After a trial in Provincial Court, Mr. Ratt was convicted of aggravated assault, obstructing police and two counts of breach of probation. He was acquitted on charges of threatening to cause bodily harm and threatening to cause death. On the charge of aggravated assault, the sentencing judge sentenced Mr. Ratt to a term of imprisonment of 46 months which, after credit was given for pre‑sentence custody, left him with 25 months to serve. Mr. Ratt received concurrent sentences of three months’ imprisonment on the charge of obstructing police and 10 months for each count of breach of probation. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown appeal from acquittal and remitted the two charges of uttering threats to the Provincial Court for a new trial. The Crown’s sentence appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal held that a fit sentence, in all the circumstances of this case, is a term of imprisonment of five years and six months less credit for pre‑sentence custody.
Alexandre Bergevin v. Her Majesty the Queen(F.C.)
Taxation — Goods and services tax — Assessment
On January 22, 2018, an assessment was made against the applicant, Alexandre Bergevin, under the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E‑15 (“ETA”). On April 23, 2018, Mr. Bergevin filed a notice of objection. A notice confirming the assessment was issued on December 10, 2018. Mr. Bergevin wanted to appeal from that assessment to the Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) and did so on April 18, 2019. The respondent informed Mr. Bergevin that the 90‑day period for instituting an appeal under s. 306 of the ETA had expired on March 10, 2019. On September 9, 2019, Mr. Bergevin, in a letter, made submissions on the expiry issue that the TCC deemed to constitute an application for an order extending the time to serve his appeal under s. 305(1) of the ETA. The TCC judge dismissed Mr. Bergevin’s application, finding that he had not met the criteria set out in s. 305(5) of the ETA for his application for an extension. The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr. Bergevin’s appeal.
Floriano Daponte, Vivian Hamilton v. Her Majesty the Queen(Ont.)
Criminal law — Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time
The applicants were charged in December 2016 with various drug trafficking‑related offences. In May 2019, the applicants filed an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time. The trial judge found the net delay from initial charge to anticipated end of evidence to be 30.5 months — over the presumptive ceiling of 30 months established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27. The application was granted, and a stay of proceedings entered on all charges. The Crown appealed, arguing that a defence certiorari application was an exceptional circumstance and that three months should be deducted from the total delay, bringing the net delay to 27.5 months. The Court of Appeal agreed and allowed the appeal, set aside the stay of proceedings, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court for trial.
Luc LeBlanc v. Her Majesty the Queen(N.B.)
Charter of Rights — Unreasonable search and seizure
U.S. border guards found cocaine in a recreational vehicle at the U.S. border with Mexico. The occupants at first said nothing about Mr. LeBlanc but later told authorities that he was the mastermind of a scheme to import cocaine into Canada. The registered owner of the vehicle also at first said nothing about Mr. LeBlanc but later told authorities he had bought the vehicle for Mr. LeBlanc. Mr. LeBlanc was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine. The witnesses testified. Crown counsel also entered evidence obtained after a police search in Canada of a different recreational vehicle that was being driven by Mr. LeBlanc. A jury convicted Mr. LeBlanc. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
R.J.H. v. Her Majesty the Queen(B.C.)
Criminal law — Sentencing — Considerations
The charges against the applicant arose after police executed a search warrant for the applicant’s residence and seized an iPad belonging to him. Images and videos of child pornography were found on the iPad. The applicant plead guilty to possession and distribution of child pornography. The applicant was diagnosed with paedophilic disorder, and assessed as a moderate risk to re‑offend sexually. In addition to an aggregate 30‑month sentence, the judge made Orders under s. 161(a)‑(c) of the Criminal Code prohibiting the applicant from engaging in certain conduct or attending areas that would provide access to children under the age of 16 for a period of 25 years. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, and reduced the s. 161 Orders to a period of 15 years.
Yochanan Ishakis also known as Jason Ishakis, Fairfax Partners Corp., Fairfax Mississauga Holdings Ltd., Fairfax Orillia Holdings Ltd. v. Janet Tutt, Laura Folland, Sharon Brown and Peter A. James, Estate Trustee of the estate of Linda Blemings, deceased(Ont.)
Civil procedure — Motions — Motion to amend statement of defence
A group of sisters inherited a business from their father. Having no business experience, they sold it to a group of companies controlled by Gustav Kastner who then sold it to a group of companies controlled by Jason Ishakis (Fairfax). The sale to Fairfax included the assignment to the sisters of three promissory notes that Fairfax granted to Mr. Kastner’s companies. In 2012 Kastner sued Fairfax for breach of the agreement of purchase and sale. Fairfax counterclaimed against Kastner and added the sisters as defendants by counterclaim. When the companies’ action was delayed, the sisters commenced a separate action against Fairfax. In 2019, Fairfax filed a motion to amend its statement of defence to include s. 8 of the Interest Act, RSC 1985, c l‑15; if applicable, it would prevent the sisters from claiming interest on the promissory notes. In 2020, a Master dismissed Fairfax’s motion on the basis that it prejudiced the other parties. On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appeal judge found no palpable or overriding errors in the Master’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.