APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
36834 Elizabeth Bernard v. Canada Revenue Agency, et al. (Federal Court)
Labour relations – Bargaining units – Labour relations
Ms. Bernard applied to the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to have an interim decision reconsidered: Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Treasury Board and Canada Revenue Agency, 2008 PSLRB 13. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review. This is the applicant’s fourth application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.
37575 Elizabeth Bernard v. Cecilia Close, et al. (Federal Court)
Administrative law – Boards and tribunals, Public service, Jurisdiction – Administrative law
The respondents were both Federal Government employees who were employed in the Case Processing Centre of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in Sydney, Nova Scotia at the relevant times. Both filed grievances with respect to leave requests that had been denied by their employer under their collective agreements. Ms. Close’s grievance was allowed by the Panel of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board (“PSLREB”), but that of Ms. Stevens was denied. Neither party appealed her decision further. The applicant sought an order from the Federal Court of Appeal quashing the decision of the PSLREB. The Applicant’s application for judicial review dismissed for want of standing.
37536 Construction Savite inc. c. Procova inc. (Québec)
In connection with work to repair the enclosure of a municipal pool, the applicant, as a specialized masonry subcontractor, filed a tender with the Bureau des soumissions déposées du Québec (“BSDQ”) for work in its speciality, which was covered by the rules in the BSDQ’s Code for the Montréal area. The respondent was one of the recipient contractors to which the applicant addressed its tender. The respondent ultimately obtained the contract from the client, the City of Montréal, but did not accept the applicant’s tender. Arguing that it was the lowest compliant tenderer, the applicant brought an action in damages against the respondent to claim its lost profits. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the action and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
37493 Intact Insurance Company v. Federated Insurance Company of Canada (Ontario)
Arbitration – Abuse of process
Pursuant to the regulation under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8., the applicant, Intact Insurance Company, entered into an agreement with the respondent, Federated Insurance Company of Canada, to arbitrate a dispute related to the payment of statutory accident benefits. The applicant cancelled the policy of the driver involved in a road accident five days before the event for non-payment of premiums. It appears that the driver was convicted of a criminal offence under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25, for operating his motor vehicle on a highway without insurance. The applicant contends that the responsibility to pay the statutory accident benefits falls on the respondent which insured the other vehicle involved in the accident. As a result, the applicant raised by way of preliminary hearing before the arbitrator, the issue of the abuse of process doctrine to prevent the respondent from adducing evidence contrary to the essential facts underlying the conviction. In his decision, the arbitrator found that the doctrine does not apply and, in the alternative, it falls within the fairness exception as set out by the Court in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79,  3 S.C.R. 77. The applicant appealed the arbitrator’s decision by way of an application to the Superior Court of Justice. The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, but this decision was reversed on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
37561 Hassan Hojjatian, et al. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (Ontario)
Mortgages – Appeals
Hassan Hojjatian and Mitra Kermani defaulted on a line of credit issued by The Toronto Dominion Bank and secured by a first mortgage on their residence. TD Bank obtained summary judgment and commenced proceedings to enforce a writ of possession. Mr. Hojjatian and Ms. Kermani appealed from the summary judgment and brought a motion to stay enforcement of the writ. The appeal and the motion were both dismissed.
37550 David Ernest MacIsaac v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ontario)
Criminal law – Appeals, Powers of court of appeal
The applicant’s two-storey building was consumed by a fire. Expert evidence determined that the fire was deliberately set. The applicant was convicted of arson. The conviction appeal was dismissed.
37529 Ronald Vincent Morin, et al. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, et al. (Alberta)
Charter (Non-criminal) – Administrative law
TransAlta Corporation sought permission to extend the deadline for completing the construction of one transmission line and the rebuild of another. Both segments are situated within the Stony Plain Indian Reserve 135, which is home to the Enoch Cree Nation. With the support of the Enoch Cree Nation, the Alberta Utilities Commission agreed to vary Decision 20598-D10-2016 as requested: Decision 21291-D01-2016. The Applicants, who had not been parties in the relevant proceedings before the Commission, sought permission to appeal Decision 21291-D01-2016 and requested a stay of that decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for permission to appeal and to stay Decision 20598-D10-2016.
37444 Hassan Hojjatian, et al. v. Intact Insurance Company and Axa Insurance (Ontario)
Contracts – Breach, Appeals
The applicants claimed under a homeowner’s insurance policy. They claimed that water damage to their basement, basement bathroom, and garage roof was caused by a rain storm and defective plumbing. Four reports were commissioned with respect to the nature of the damages and its causes. Intact Insurance Company refused to pay the claim, citing exclusion clauses in the insurance policy. Mr. Hojjatian and Ms. Kermani commenced a claim for damages and punitive damages. They applied for summary judgment. They also were involved in litigation with Toronto-Dominion Bank in relation to enforcement of a writ of possession against the home and against Loblaws Inc. in relation to a business dispute. The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for summary judgment against Toronto Dominion Bank without prejudice to return with further evidence. The Superior Court of Justice also dismissed the application for summary judgment and action against Intact Insurance Company and Axa Insurance. Appeals from both of these decisions were dismissed.
37557 Lubov Volnyansky v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as Represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, et al. (Ontario)
Civil procedure – Application (s. 32), Social assistance – Civil procedure
Lubov Volnyansky brought four appeals to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court; three from decisions of the Ontario Social Benefits Tribunal and one from an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision. Two of the decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal upheld deductions made by the Regional Municipality of Peel to the benefit payments Ms. Volnyansky was receiving under the Ontario Works program, while the third decision upheld the Municipality’s refusal to reimburse Ms. Volnyansky for expenses incurred in attending court proceedings to pursue support payments from her former husband. The fourth appeal concerned a decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal dismissing an application filed by Ms. Volnyansky. The four appeals were heard together by the Divisional Court.
In separate orders, the Divisional Court dismissed the three appeals from the decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal, finding those decisions were correct. The court also dismissed the appeal from the Human Rights Tribunal decision, finding the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Volnyansky’s motion for leave to appeal the four orders of the Divisional Court.
37559 Alexander Wissotzky v. Greg Nisan, et al. (Ontario)
Charter (Non-criminal) – Fundamental justice (s. 7), Right to equality
The parties commenced claims and counter-claims against each other regarding a promissory note and partnership agreement. The Ontario Superior Court found the respondent, Mr. Nisan should have judgment against the applicant, Mr. Wissotzky on the promissory note for the amount of $108,717. The court dismissed the respondents’ personal and corporate claims against Mr. Wissotzky regarding the partnership. The counterclaims of Mr. Wissotzky were also dismissed. The applicant brought a motion in the Ontario Court of Appeal to extend the time to perfect his appeal. This motion was dismissed. His appeal of the motion decision was also dismissed by the Court of Appeal.