SCC No.
Case Name
Province of Origin
Keywords
40396
Thalbinder Singh Poonian, et al. v. British Columbia Securities Commission
BC
Bankruptcy and Insolvency — Debts not released by discharge
40399
Lorne Scott, et al. v. Doyle Salewski Inc. in its capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., et al.
ON
Bankruptcy and Insolvency — Trustees — Ponzi scheme
40465
Dwayne Alexander Campbell v. His Majesty the King
ON
Charter of Rights — Search and seizure (s. 8)
SCC No.
Case Name
Province of Origin
Keywords
40194
Timothy Leyne v. PSP Investments Canada Inc.
QC
Employment law — Termination without a serious reason
40460
David Sillars v. His Majesty the King
ON
Criminal law — Offence
40224
Ingrid S. Hayden v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)
AB
Civil procedure — Abuse of process
40486
Ingrid Hayden v. Bradley J. Hayden Professional Corporation, William Armstrong and Affiliates, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
AB
Civil procedure — Abuse of process
40365
Autorité des marchés financiers c. Josh Baazov, et al.
QC
Provincial offences — Insider trading
40381
His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, et al. v. Reginald Barker, et al.
ON
Fiduciary duty — Crown — Limitations
40423
Charles Thomas Polanski v. Law Society of Ontario
ON
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Administrative law
40470
Mathew Pampena v. His Majesty the King
ON
Criminal law — Charter of Rights — Exclusion of evidence
39969
Keenan A. Feeney v. Calgary Police Service and Mike ter Kuile
AB
Civil procedure — Appeals
40230
Keenan A. Feeney v. His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta
AB
Civil procedure — Appeals — Vexatious litigant
40309
Danny Lamoureux c. Organisme canadien de réglementation du commerce des valeurs mobilières (OCRCVM)
QC
Civil procedure — Class actions — Human rights
40449
Joan Pizzey, et al. v. Howard Vansickle, et al.
ON
Wills and estates — Wills — Interpretation
40305
Myriam Michail v. London District Catholic School Board
ON
Civil Procedure — Motion
40362
Ignacio Tan III v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association
AB
Administrative law — Boards and tribunals
40497
Alberta Dental Association and College v. Nimet Jinnah
AB
Administrative law — Boards and tribunals
40377
Bruce J. Slusar, et al. v. Merchant Law Group LLP
SK
Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors
40387
Lisheng Cheng v. Peter Grigoras
ON
Contracts — Interpretation — Guarantee
40370
Overstory Media Inc., et al. v. Attorney General of British Columbia, et al.
BC
Criminal law — Publication bans — Open court principle
40466
Paul Alves Faria v. His Majesty the King
ON
Criminal law — Evidence — Cumulative evidence
40311
Marc Boudreau, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.
QC
Civil Procedure — Class actions — Authorization to institute class action
40395
Igor Mozajko v. His Majesty the King
Federal Court
Civil procedure — Pleadings — Statement of Claim
40491
Angelina Marie Codina v. His Majesty the King
ON
Charter of Rights — Fundamental justice — Abuse of process
40492
Angelina Marie Codina v. His Majesty the King
ON
Courts — Jurisdiction — Prerogative writs
40493
Angelina Marie Codina v. His Majesty the King
ON
Criminal law — Procedure — Sufficiency of reasons
40474
Salim Rana v. Zahir Rana, Attorney for Gulzar Rana
AB
Civil procedure — Appeals
40580
Salim Rana v. Zahir Rana, Attorney for Gulzar Rana
AB
Judgments and orders — Declaratory judgments
40294
Thierry Simon c. Sa Majesté le Roi
QC
Criminal law — Charter of Rights
40500
Derrick Michael Lawlor v. His Majesty the King
ON
Criminal law — Charge to jury
40158
Jennifer Louise Stewart, as Executor of the Estate of Christopher Stewart v. Lloyd’s Underwriters, et al.
BC
Insurance — Remedies — Punitive Damages
40383
Rachad Itani c. Société générale de Banque au Liban SAL
QC
Private international law — Foreign arbitration award
40407
Calder Seamus McCormick v. Stephen Patrick Pearson, et al.
BC
Torts — Duty of Care
40181
Tyson Bowe, an infant, by his litigation guardian, Rosalyn Hina Chalmers v. Roy Boltz, et al.
BC
Torts — Motor vehicles — Negligence
40389
Guy F. Therrien c. Directeur général des élections du Québec
QC
Elections — Election publicity
40400
Pharmascience Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company and Pfizer Inc.
Federal Court
Intellectual property — Patents — Medicines
40409
James Kot v. Attorney General of Canada
Federal Court
Labour relations — Grievances — Jurisdiction
40414
Noel Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island Teachers Federation, et al.
PEI
Human Rights — Discriminatory practices
40442
Noel Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island Teachers Federation, et al.
BC
Damages — Non-pecuniary damages — Jury award
40396
Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Poonian v. British Columbia Securities Commission
(B.C.)
Bankruptcy and Insolvency — Debts not released by discharge
The respondent, British Columbia Securities Commission (“Commission”) found that the applicants, Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Poonian (“Poonians”), breached the Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, by engaging in conduct that resulted in the misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a corporation’s shares. It then imposed both a disgorgement order and an administrative penalty against the Poonians. The Commission applied to the BCSC for an order declaring that the amounts owed to it by the Poonians were debts that would not be released by an order of discharge under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). The BCSC granted the Commission’s application. It concluded that that the debts fell within two exemptions to the discharge of debts outlined at s. 178(1) of the BIA: the debts were fines, penalties or restitution orders imposed by a court (s. 178(1)(a)) and they resulted from obtaining property or services by false pretences or fraudulent misrepresentation (s. 178(1)(e)). The Court of Appeal for British Columbia (“BCCA”) dismissed the appeal. While it disagreed that the sanctions had been imposed by a court, it concluded that the BCSC had not erred in finding that the sanctions in this case fell within the exemption defined in s. 178(1)(e) of the BIA. The fact that the misrepresentation was not made to the creditor — in this case, the Commission — did not preclude the Commission from relying on the exemption.
40399
Lorne Scott, Janet Arsenault, Jeremy Mitchell, Josée Bouchard, Le Thu Nguyen, Mark McKenna, Judy McKenna, Susan McKillip, 1531425 Ontario Inc., Joe Messa and Ernest Toste v. Doyle Salewski Inc. in its capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Golden Oaks Entreprises Inc. and Joseph Gilles Jean Claude Lacasse
(Ont.)
Bankruptcy and Insolvency — Trustees — Ponzi scheme
Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc., founded by Joseph Gilles Jean Claude Lacasse, was a Ponzi scheme. The scheme collapsed in 2013 and both Golden Oaks and Mr. Lacasse, Golden Oaks’ principal and directing mind, went into receivership and made assignments in bankruptcy. A trustee in bankruptcy was appointed. It began over 80 separate legal actions against creditors in 2015. Seventeen of these actions were brought against individuals and companies who received payments from Golden Oaks in 2012 and 2013, which included commission payments and interest on promissory notes. The theory of these 17 actions was that, as a Ponzi scheme, Golden Oaks was by definition insolvent, it never had enough money to pay what it owed to legitimate creditors, and the commission payments and usurious interest payments to the defendants deprived those creditors of their share of the company’s remaining equity. The 17 actions were heard together in a summary trial.
The trial judge granted a claim under s. 95(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, against Mr. Scott for repayment of $72,575 in preferences, while dismissing other claims against him. With respect to the other investor applicants, the trial judge granted claims for repayment of interest in varying amounts between $4,000 and $67,500.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal in part.
40465
Dwayne Alexander Campbell v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.)
Charter of Rights — Search and seizure (s. 8)
Police seized a cellphone during a search incident to the arrest of a known drug dealer. The phone was displaying incoming text messages on its screen. The police believed the messages revealed a transaction for heroin, which would likely be laced with fentanyl, was in progress.
The police impersonated the drug dealer by responding to the text messages, and arranged to have the drugs delivered to the dealer’s residence. Applicant Dwayne Alexander Campbell arrived at the residence and was arrested. Mr. Campbell was charged under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). At trial, Mr. Campbell brought a motion to exclude evidence, claiming that his rights under s. 8 of the Charter had been infringed by the police action in using the dealer’s phone to communicate with him. The trial judge rejected Mr. Campbell’s claim that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages, and concluded that the likelihood that the drugs were laced with fentanyl created exigent circumstances that justified the warrantless use of the drug dealer’s cellphone. Mr. Campbell was convicted and sentenced.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr. Campbell did have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his electronic communications, but that the police action was justified by the exigent circumstances doctrine. Consequently, there was no breach of Mr. Campbell’s s. 8 rights. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Campbell’s appeal from his conviction and sentence.
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed
40194
Timothy Leyne v. PSP Investments Canada Inc.
(Que.)
Employment law — Termination without a serious reason
The applicant, Mr. Leyne, worked for PSP Investments Canada Inc. (“PSP”) for approximately 5.5 years from April 2010 until November 2015 as Managing Director of Value Opportunity. His compensation included a base salary, a short-term incentive program (“STIP”), a long-term incentive program (“LTIP”), and other perquisites and benefits.
On November 4, 2015, PSP terminated Mr. Leyne’s employment without a serious reason and without notice. PSP ultimately paid an indemnity representing 39 weeks of base salary and perquisites, STIP awards pro-rated to November 4, 2015, and LTIP awards pro-rated to Nov 18, 2015. For most employees, LTIP awards normally “vest” after four years. However, the LTIP contained two special provisions related to LTIP entitlements in the event of termination without a serious reason, which provide that LTIP payments include pro-rated awards to the “the later of the date of the event or the end of any statutory notice period in the case of termination.”
Mr. Leyne sued PSP and sought a reasonable notice period of 12 months and additional indemnities, including pro-rated LTIP awards to the end of the reasonable notice period.
The trial judge ordered that PSP pay Mr. Leyne additional amounts with respect to the STIP and his pension contributions. However, it declined to order any additional amounts with respect to the LTIP because of the LTIP provisions that limit such payments in the case of termination. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Leyne’s appeal.
40460
David Sillars v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.)
Criminal law — Offence
The applicant took an eight-year-old child canoeing during the April spring runoff. The water was frigid and moving swiftly. The boy did not know how to canoe and was a weak swimmer. They were headed towards High Falls to retrieve a piece of debris wedged against a yellow barrier warning of danger due to the falls. The canoe capsized, the child was swept over the falls and died. The applicant made it to shore. The applicant was convicted in a judge-alone trial of impaired operation of a vessel causing death and criminal negligence causing death. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
40224
Ingrid S. Hayden v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC)
-and-
Nugent Law Office, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, Honourable Mary T. Moreau, Honourable Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke, Madam Justice P. Rowbotham, Laurie Baptiste
(Alta.)
Civil procedure — Abuse of process
The applicant is the defendant in a debt collection action brought by the respondent bank. In June 2021, the bank filed a Statement of Claim seeking repayment of an outstanding mortgage debt or foreclosure of the mortgaged property. The applicant’s defence alleged that she had been misled by fraud, defamation, misrepresentation and intentional false statements by the bank. She argued that it had acted in bad faith by not entering into a consolidation loan which had been discussed.
In August 2021, the applicant filed an affidavit with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench seeking permission to file a counterclaim in the collection action which named not only the bank but the other parties listed in this leave application. The Court denied the application for leave to file the counterclaim. It found that the additional parties had been improperly added as they nothing to do with the action between the bank and the applicant. It also found that the counterclaim against the bank had no reasonable basis in law and was an abuse of court processes. It is from this decision that the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. She also requests that the proceeding be discontinued against the non-bank parties.
40486
Ingrid Hayden v. Bradley J. Hayden Professional Corporation, William Armstrong and Affiliates, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
(Alta.)
Civil procedure — Abuse of process
The applicant was made subject to prospective court access gatekeeping by the decision in Hayden v. Hayden, 2020 ABQB 700, and leave to appeal that decision was denied by a judge of the Court of Appeal of Alberta. After she unsuccessfully attempted to initiate further actions, Rooke A.C.J. prohibited her from filing documents except by leave of the court and subject to further conditions, including payment of an outstanding amount of $11,000 in penalties: 2022 ABQB 593. The applicant brought another application, writing to the Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench asking that the vexatious litigant Order be set aside because it had been obtained by misrepresentation and asking that all Orders by Rooke A.C.J. be vacated.
Associate Chief Justice Rooke dismissed the application on the grounds that the applicant had not followed the procedure set out in 2022 ABQB 593, had engaged in judge shopping, had engaged in a collateral attack of 2020 ABQB 700 and other decisions rendered in relation to her, and had provided no evidence that the court access restrictions imposed upon her by 2020 ABQB 700 and 2022 ABQB 593 should be reduced or eliminated. The applicant applies for leave to appeal that decision.
40365
Autorité des marchés financiers v. Josh Baazov, Craig Levett, Allie Mansour, John Chatzidakis, Karl Fallenbaum, Feras Antoon, 9179-3786 Québec inc. and The Stars Group Inc., formerly known as Amaya inc.
(Que.)
Provincial offences — Insider trading — Courts
Following an investigation and numerous searches, the applicant, Autorité des marchés financiers (“AMF”), notified the Superior Court that no penal or administrative proceedings would be brought against the respondents. It nevertheless argued that it was entitled to keep copies of more than ten million technology-based documents seized during the investigation. The Superior Court determined that the AMF could not keep copies of the seized documents. A seizure does not make the AMF the owner of the things seized, but only their custodian, and the public interest requires that investigations be conducted in a manner that respects the rights of persons from whom things are seized and third parties. The Court of Appeal intervened, finding that the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to decide whether copies could be kept, as that power belonged exclusively to the Court of Québec. It therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
40381
His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario v. Reginald Barker, Jean-Paul Belec, Eric Bethune (formerly Jean-Jacque Berthiaume), Joseph Bonner, William Brennan by the Estate Trustee Maxwell Brennan, Stephen Carson, Roy Dale, Maurice Desrochers by the Estate Trustee Lorraine Desrochers, Donald Everingham, John Finlayson, Terry Ghetti, Bruce Hamill, Eldon Hardy, William Hawboldt by the Estate Trustee Barbara Brockley, Danny A. Joanisse, Russ Johnson, Stanley Kierstead, Denis Lepage, Christian Magee, Douglas Mccaul, Brian Floyd Mcinnes, Allen Mcmann, Leeford Miller, James Motherall by the Estate Trustees Deborah Karen Moroz and Jane Alexis Marion, Michael Roger Pinet, Edwin Sevels, Samuel Frederick Charles Shepherd and Shauna Taylor (formerly Vance H. Egglestone)
- and between -
Elliott Thompson Baker by his Litigation Guardian Janine Baker, Gary J. Maier v. Reginald Barker, Jean-Paul Belec, Eric Bethune (formerly Jean-Jacque Berthiaume), Joseph Bonner, William Brennan by the Estate Trustee Maxwell Brennan, Stephen Carson, Roy Dale, Maurice Desrochers by the Estate Trustee Lorraine Desrochers, Donald Everingham, John Finlayson, Terry Ghetti, Bruce Hamill, Eldon Hardy, William Hawboldt by the Estate Trustee Barbara Brockley, Danny A. Joanisse, Russ Johnson, Stanley Kierstead, Denis Lepage, Christian Magee, Douglas Mccaul, Brian Floyd Mcinnes, Allen Mcmann, Leeford Miller, James Motherall by the Estate Trustees Deborah Karen Moroz and Jane Alexis Marion, Michael Roger Pinet, Edwin Sevels, Samuel Frederick Charles Shepherd and Shauna Taylor (formerly Vance H. Egglestone)
(Ont.)
Fiduciary duty — Crown — Limitations
Twenty-eight men who had been involuntarily committed between 1966 and 1983 to a unit of the Oak Ridge Division of the Mental Health Centre in Penetanguishene, Ontario, commenced claims against two of the unit’s clinical directors and the Province of Ontario. Twenty-seven plaintiffs claimed programs administered on them were tortious and caused harm with no therapeutic benefit; one claimed he lived in fear of being subjected to the programs. Negligence claims were abandoned at trial. The trial judge found and awarded damages for breach of fiduciary duty, battery, assault, vicarious liability, and knowingly assisting liability. The Court of Appeal allowed appeals and cross-appeals in part, dismissed one claim and modified some damages awards.
40423
Charles Thomas Polanski v. Law Society of Ontario
(Ont.)
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Administrative law
The applicant, Charles Polanski, applied to the Law Society of Ontario to be licensed as a lawyer. The Law Society referred his application to a panel of the Hearing Division of the Law Society Tribunal, to determine if he met the “good character” requirement under s. 27(4) of the Law Society Act. In September 2020, the Hearing Division dismissed Mr. Polanski’s application. In November 2021, the Appeal Division of the Law Society Tribunal dismissed Mr. Polanski’s appeal from the licensing decision. Mr. Polanski then sought to appeal the Appeal Division’s 2021 decision, by way of an application before a single judge of the Divisional Court within the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Polanski’s appeal. The Court of Appeal refused to grant Mr. Polanski leave to appeal that decision.
40470
Mathew Pampena v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.)
Criminal law — Charter of Rights — Exclusion of evidence
The police executed a search warrant at the applicant’s home and seized drugs and money. After executing the warrant, the police discovered that the affiant had mistakenly inverted two numbers in the applicant’s address in the Information to Obtain, rendering the warrant invalid. At trial, the Crown conceded that the error in the search warrant rendered it invalid, and therefore the search was a warrantless search. The applicant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marihuana, and possession of property obtained by crime. The trial judge ruled the evidence admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.
39969
Keenan A. Feeney v. Calgary Police Service and Mike ter Kuile
- and -
His Majesty the King and Law Society of Alberta
(Alta.)
Civil procedure — Appeals
The applicant brought an action against the respondents alleging malicious prosecution for having laid a perjury charge against him.
An application to summarily dismiss that charge was heard and granted by a Master of the Court of Queen’s Bench.
The chambers judge upheld the Master’s decision to summarily dismiss the action.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the subsequent appeal.
40230
Keenan A. Feeney v. His Majesty the King in Right of Alberta
(Alta.)
Civil procedure — Appeals — Vexatious litigant
An application was brought for a declaration that the applicant was conducting litigation in a vexatious manner and an order that he shall not institute further proceedings in either the Court of Appeal or the Court of Queen’s Bench without the permission of the relevant court.
The Court of Appeal refused to make a declaration with respect to access to the Court of Queen’s Bench. But it did find that Mr. Feeney had been conducting proceedings in the Court of Appeal in a vexatious manner. The court ordered that Mr. Feeney could not institute further proceedings on his own behalf, or any other person in the Court of Appeal without the permission of a judge of that court.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for permission to appeal.
40309
Danny Lamoureux v. Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC)
(Que.)
Civil procedure — Class actions — Human rights
The class action instituted by the applicant, Mr. Lamoureux, against the respondent, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (“IIROC”), arose from the fact that a laptop computer containing the personal information of thousands of Canadian investors had been left on a train by an IIROC inspector. The unidentified device was never returned or found. The class action sought, among other things, compensatory damages for the injury suffered as a result of the loss of the computer and the personal information. The Superior Court dismissed the class action, finding that the members’ fears and annoyances due to the loss of personal information could not constitute compensable damage. In its opinion, they were more like the normal inconveniences that people living in society encounter and should have to accept. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that no palpable and overriding error had been identified in the judgment under appeal. In its view, Mr. Lamoureux was asking it to reassess the evidence in order to reach a different conclusion than the judge, which was not the role of an appellate court.
40449
Joan Pizzey, Allen Vansickle, Mary Ann Fletcher v. Howard Vansickle, Doug Vansickle
(Ont.)
Wills and estates — Wills — Interpretation
Testator Dorothy VanSickle and her husband had owned and operated a hobby farm for many years. After her husband died Ms. VanSickle’s eldest son, respondent Howard VanSickle, began leasing the farmland from his mother. He continued to do so until her death.
After Ms. VanSickle’s death, her estate trustees brought an application for direction concerning the interpretation of a clause in the will which granted Howard VanSickle an option to purchase his mother’s farming business, including the farm land and equipment, for a specified price.
The application judge held that Ms. VanSickle did not carry on her farming business on the date of her death and that her will was ineffective in granting Howard VanSickle an option to purchase the farm property and equipment. Howard and his brother, respondent Doug VanSickle, appealed from the application judge’s decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
40305
Myriam Michail v. London District Catholic School Board
- and -
Attorney General of Ontario
(Ont.)
Civil Procedure — Motion
The applicant was employed by the respondent London District Catholic School Board (“Board”) from 1990 to 2014, when she was terminated. The Board commenced an application to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant, pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43 (“CJA”). The applicant responded by bringing a motion under s. 137.1 of the CJA, taking the view that the Board’s application was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”), intended to silence her. The s. 140 application, which has been stayed pending resolution of the applicant’s motion, has not yet been heard. The applicant’s motion was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed. The request for leave to appeal costs was dismissed. The applicant’s motion raising constitutional questions was not addressed.
40362
Ignacio Tan III v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association
(Alta.)
Administrative law — Boards and tribunals
The applicant is a veterinarian. A dog was brought into clinic because of swelling underneath her left eye. A complaint was subsequently made to the respondent, Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (“AVMA”) respecting the dog’s treatment.
The Hearing Tribunal of the AVMA found the applicant guilty of six allegations of unprofessional conduct and ordered sanctions, including a reprimand, fines, continuing education courses and practice inspections.
The appeal to the Committee of Council of the AVMA was dismissed as the Hearing Tribunal’s decision was found to be reasonable.
Both the decision and cost award were appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found the applicant had failed to show any reviewable error in the findings of unprofessional conduct and dismissed the main appeal. However, the Court of Appeal did find a reviewable error with respect to the award of costs and allowed the appeal in that respect only and ordered the applicant be responsible for only 50 percent of the costs.
40497
Alberta Dental Association and College v. Nimet Jinnah
(Alta.)
Administrative law — Boards and tribunals
The respondent is a dentist regulated by the applicant, Alberta Dental Association and College (“College”). The respondent took steps to collect a patient’s unpaid account which eventually ended with the patient writing to the College seeking assistance in resolving this problem. Two and a half years after the patient first contacted the College, a notice of hearing, charging the dentist with unprofessional conduct in relation to her billing and collections practices, was issued.
The Hearing Tribunal found the dentist engaged in unprofessional conduct. She was prohibited from practicing for a month, ordered to complete an ethics course and costs of $50, 000 were imposed.
The Appeal Panel upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion of unprofessional conduct but quashed the one-month suspension and substituted a reprimand and reduced the hearing tribunal costs to $37,500. The Appeal Panel found that the Hearing Tribunal’s sanction of requiring the dentist to take an ethics course was reasonable. It also ordered the dentist to pay costs equal to one-quarter of the Appeal Panel costs.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. All misconduct determinations were set aside except for one. The order to take an ethics course was set aside and the cost award was varied.
40377
Bruce J. Slusar, Bruce J. Slusar Law Office, P.C. Inc v. Merchant Law Group LLP
(Sask.)
Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors
Respondent Merchant Law Group LLP (“Merchant Law”) had undertaken legal work for a client, pursuant to a contingency fee agreement, to advance a claim for damages arising from his attendance at a residential school. The client later retained applicants Bruce J. Slusar and Bruce J. Slusar Law Office, P.C. Inc. (“Slusar Law”) as his new counsel. Merchant Law notified Slusar Law that it claimed a solicitor’s lien on the file and sent a statement of its account in relation to the client.
Several years later Merchant Law brought a claim against the client and Bruce J. Slusar personally. Merchant Law discontinued its claim against the client, but later filed an amended statement of claim adding Slusar Law as a defendant.
A motions judge dismissed Merchant Law’s claim. Merchant Law appealed. The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan allowed the appeal.
40387
Lisheng Cheng v. Peter Grigoras
(Ont.)
Contracts — Interpretation — Guarantee
Mr. Cheng entered into a guarantee agreement with Mr. Grigoras. When Mr. Grigoras’s obligations came due, payment was delayed. Mr. Cheng served a statement of claim and brought a motion for summary judgment. The trial judge dismissed the motion and held the guarantee was limited to collateral set out in an appendix to the guarantee agreement. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
40370
Overstory Media Inc., Camilo Ruiz v. Attorney General of British Columbia, Attorney General of Canada
(B.C.)
Criminal law — Publication bans — Open court principle
More than 400 people were charged with criminal contempt for having violated an injunction order obtained by a logging company in British Columbia. In accordance with the proceedings for criminal contempt, Crown disclosure was provided to alleged contemnors to facilitate their right to make full answer and defence. After becoming aware the disclosure material was in the hands of journalists, including the applicants, the respondents, the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada, applied to the British Columbia Supreme Court to enjoin the alleged contemnors or anyone with knowledge of the proposed order from publishing disclosure material. The British Columbia Supreme Court granted the respondents’ application and imposed an order including a publication ban. The applicants apply for leave to appeal directly from that decision to this Court.
40466
Paul Alves Faria v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.)
Criminal law — Evidence — Cumulative evidence
On January 1, 2013, Victoria Doyle was beaten and strangled to death in her home. The applicant and Ms. Doyle attended the same New Year’s Eve party on the night of her death. Ms. Doyle returned home after the party; the applicant followed her there uninvited. There is no direct evidence of what occurred in Ms. Doyle’s home to cause her death, but her blood was found on the applicant’s winter jacket.
Over the months preceding her death, Ms. Doyle made statements, verbally and by text message, describing the deterioration of her intimate relationship with the applicant. These statements tended to characterize the applicant as violent and obsessive. At trial, the Crown relied in part upon Ms. Doyle’s statements to allege that the applicant murdered her while committing the offence of criminal harassment, and that he intended that Ms. Doyle fear for her safety, thus elevating the murder to first-degree murder under s. 231(6) of the Criminal Code.
The applicant objected to the admission of Ms. Doyle’s statements on the basis that they were needlessly repetitive and therefore prejudicial. The applicant also sought a directed verdict on first-degree murder under s. 231(6) on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy that section’s prerequisites.
The trial judge found that Ms. Doyle’s statements were admissible hearsay. The trial judge also held that there was sufficient evidence of the elements of first-degree murder required by s. 231(6) to leave that path to liability with the jury. The jury found the applicant guilty of first-degree murder and the trial judge entered a conviction accordingly. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
40311
Marc Boudreau, N.P. v. Attorney General of Quebec, Les Sœurs de la Providence, Les Sœurs de Miséricorde de Montréal, Les Sœurs Grises de Montréal, Sœurs de la Charité de Québec, Les Sœurs Dominicaines de la Trinité, Congrégation des Sœurs de Notre-Dame auxiliatrice, Les Sœurs du Bon-Pasteur de Québec, Les Petites Franciscaines de Marie
(Que.)
Civil Procedure — Class actions — Authorization to institute class action
Mr. Boudreau and N.P. sought authorization to represent all persons, or their estates, who were victims of psychological, physical or sexual abuse or were subjected to persecution or human experimentation in any institution operated, administered or directed by the respondent congregations in the province of Quebec from 1935 to 1975. In the proposal, three subgroups of potential members were identified and referred to eligibility for the National Program of Reconciliation with the Duplessis Orphans.
The application judge dismissed the application for authorization to institute a class action as he identified shortcomings relating to the common nature of the questions raised and the description of the group.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and found that the application judge did not err in concluding that the application for authorization to institute a class action did not meet most of the criteria set out in the legislation. The Court of Appeal supported the application judge’s conclusion that there was real confusion regarding the description of the group and that the dilution of common issues was evident.
40395
Igor Mozajko v. His Majesty the King
(F.C.)
Civil procedure — Pleadings — Statement of Claim
The applicant, Mr. Mozajko, filed a statement of claim by which he sought certain declarations and unspecified damages related to the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2016-230 (“ACMPR”). The claim advanced the same allegations that were raised in another case which was struck by the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) (Harris v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232). The Crown sought to have Mr. Mozajko’s statement of claim struck. The Federal Court dismissed, in part, the Crown’s motion. On appeal, Mr. Mozajko argued that the failure of the Crown to serve notice of a constitutional question was fatal to the Crown’s argument that his statement of claim should be struck. The FCA concluded that no notice of any constitutional question was required. The FCA found that Mr. Mozajko did not seek to distinguish his statement of claim from that of Mr. Harris. It therefore applied its decision in Harris. It allowed the Crown’s appeal, struck Mr. Mozajko’s statement of claim without leave to amend, and dismissed Mr. Mozajko’s cross-appeal.
40491
Angelina Marie Codina v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)
Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Fundamental justice — Abuse of process
Ms. Codina provided advice and services to four sets of clients who retained Codina International for assistance in immigration matters. She was charged with four counts of providing advice or representation for consideration contrary to s. 91(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and one count of knowingly counselling a misrepresentation contrary to s. 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The indictment was preferred. Ms. Codina was convicted by a jury on all five counts and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from the convictions and the sentences.
40492
Angelina Marie Codina v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.)
Courts — Jurisdiction — Prerogative writs
Ms. Codina was convicted and sentenced for providing advice or representation for consideration contrary to s. 91(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and counselling a misrepresentation contrary to s. 126. After her appeals from the convictions and sentences were dismissed, she applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on a writ of habeas corpus alleging that she was being unlawfully detained and should be released. The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
40493
Angelina Marie Codina v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.)
Criminal law — Procedure — Sufficiency of reasons
Ms. Codina was convicted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, on four counts of violating s. 91(1) and one count of violating s. 126. She was sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from the convictions and sentences. The Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to reopen the appeals and a motion for judicial interim release.
40474
Salim Rana v. Zahir Rana, Attorney for Gulzar Rana
(Alta.)
Civil procedure — Appeals
The applicant’s application under the Personal Directives Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-6 to have a visit with his mother under conditions imposed by the case management judge was granted. The applicant sought leave to appeal from the visitation order. The Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s application for permission to appeal.
40580
Salim Rana v. Zahir Rana, Attorney for Gulzar Rana
(Alta.)
Judgments and orders — Declaratory judgments
On February 16, 2022, the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant. He was granted leave to appeal that decision only on the basis that the respondent had failed to notify the Minister that he was seeking the vexatious litigant order. The respondent applied to vary the vexatious litigant order and provided notice to the Minister. The Minister advised that they would not be participating in the application. Rooke A.C.J. varied the vexatious litigant order nunc pro tunc, to rectify the previous failure to serve the Minister. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed as moot.
40294
Thierry Simon v. His Majesty the King
(Que.)
Criminal law — Charter of Rights
Following the receipt of information from a registered informant and seven days of surveillance, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the applicant, Mr. Simon, was trafficking in heroin. They obtained warrants to search the applicant’s vehicle and residence as well as those of another individual of interest in the investigation. On March 29, 2018, the police executed the warrants. They arrested the applicant first behind the wheel of his car and suspended his right to counsel until the other individual was arrested. The suspension lasted just over four hours. During that time, the applicant was not questioned.
When the applicant, his vehicle and his residence were searched, the police seized a total of 205.8 grams of heroin, two cell phones, $109,876 in cash, small transparent blue bags, bagging equipment and accounting documents. The applicant was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of things obtained by the commission of an offence. At trial, he sought to have the evidence excluded under the Charter, alleging that the grounds set out in the information in support of the warrant to search his residence were insufficient and that his right to counsel had been infringed. The Court of Québec dismissed the motions; the evidence adduced in connection with the motions was entered on the merits and the applicant was convicted of the offences charged. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
40500
Derrick Michael Lawlor v. His Majesty the King
(Ont.)
Criminal law — Charge to jury
The applicant had engaged in a sexual encounter with two other men in a park. A number of hours later, the body of one of those men was found in the park; he had died due to external neck compression. The applicant had mental health difficulties and had consumed both psychiatric medication and alcohol around the time he was in the park with the victim and the third man. The applicant had made several statements both before and after the victim’s death that he wanted to harm and kill gay men, and that he had at times carried a rope and a knife to do so. In the days following the killing, the applicant searched the internet for news with respect to the discovery of a body in the park.
A jury convicted the applicant of first-degree murder. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and held that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury had been appropriate. In dissent, Nordheimer J.A. would have allowed the appeal on two grounds: (1) that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the applicant’s mental health as it relates to the intent required for murder and (2) that the trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction on the use of after-the-fact conduct evidence. Nordheimer J.A. would have ordered a new trial.
40158
Jennifer Louise Stewart, as executor of the estate of Christopher Stewart v. Lloyd's Underwriters, Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. / Industrielle Alliance, Assurance et Services Financiers inc.
(B.C.)
Insurance — Remedies — Punitive Damages
Christopher Stewart purchased a travel medical policy of insurance before going on vacation. The policy was underwritten by respondents Lloyd's Underwriters and Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. / Industrielle Alliance, Assurance et Services Financiers inc. (together, “the insurers”).
While on vacation, Mr. Stewart fell and was injured after experiencing a brief loss of consciousness known as “syncope”. He was hospitalized and underwent surgery as a consequence. He was eventually flown back to a hospital in British Columbia.
As a result of this incident, Mr. Stewart incurred close to $300,000 in medical expenses. The insurers’ agent denied coverage under the travel medical policy, on the grounds that Mr. Stewart’s injuries were related to alcohol intoxication. Consequently, health care providers and collection agencies began contacting Mr. Stewart directly to seek payment of outstanding amounts. Mr. Stewart denied he had been intoxicated and retained legal counsel to commence an action against the insurers.
Several months before trial the decision to deny coverage was reversed. The insurers’ agent settled Mr. Stewart’s health care bills at a significant discount prior to trial, paying only about 20% of the outstanding amount.
The trial judge found that the insurers had breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing and awarded Mr. Stewart punitive damages, as well as non-pecuniary damages for mental distress. Mr. Stewart’s claim for legal fees as a head of compensatory damages was dismissed.
Mr. Stewart passed away after the trial, but his estate appealed from the dismissal of his claim for legal fees. The insurers cross-appealed against the award of punitive damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but allowed the cross-appeal.
40383
Rachad Itani v. Société générale de Banque au Liban SAL
(Que.)
Private international law — Foreign arbitration award
In April 2000, the applicant, Rachad Itani, took out a loan for €1,000,000 from the respondent, Société générale de Banque au Liban SAL, to finance the purchase of a securities portfolio in Lebanon. The securities were held in a trust patrimony managed by the respondent. The parties signed a trust agreement to secure the repayment of the loan and to set terms for the management of the trust patrimony. The trust agreement included an arbitration clause. The respondent requested arbitration in accordance with the clause. On August 10, 2006, in Beirut, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to repay the respondent €1,319,733.27 with interest at the rate of 4 percent from January 29, 2005. In April 2016, the respondent applied to the Quebec Superior Court to have the arbitration award recognized and enforced. The applicant opposed the application, arguing that it was subject to the 3‑year prescriptive period, which had passed. The Quebec Superior Court held that the 10-year prescriptive period in art. 2924 of the Civil Code of Québec applied in this case. It recognized the arbitration award and declared the award enforceable in Quebec, and it ordered the applicant to pay the respondent more than $2.5 million. The Quebec Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judgment as regards the issue of the applicable prescriptive period.
40407
Calder Seamus McCormick v. Stephen Patrick Pearson, Lidia Diana Pearson
(B.C.)
Torts — Duty of Care
The applicant attended a party at the respondents’ home where underage people were permitted to consume alcohol and drugs. The applicant and a friend left the party on foot but later stole a vehicle which crashed, injuring the applicant. The friend died. The trial judge dismissed the applicant’s claim in negligence against the respondents on the basis that no duty of care was owed to him, as the harm which occurred was not reasonably foreseeable. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
40181
Tyson Bowe, an infant, by his litigation guardian, Rosalyn Hina Chalmers v. Roy Boltz, Dale Edward Bowe
(B.C.)
Torts — Motor vehicles — Negligence
The applicant, Tyson Bowe (“Tyson”), suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident that was the consequence of a joyride that he embarked on with his cousin, the respondent Dale Bowe (“Dale”), when they were both 15 years old. At the time of the accident, Tyson was living with his stepfather, the respondent Roy Boltz, who owned the vehicle. Tyson took the keys without Mr. Boltz’s knowledge. Also at the time of the accident, Dale was driving and Tyson was a front seat passenger. A jury allowed Tyson’s claim in negligence against Dale, who was found 60 percent at fault for Tyson’s injuries, but dismissed a negligence claim against Mr. Boltz. Tyson’s further claim that Mr. Boltz was vicariously liable for Dale’s negligence under s. 86(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318 (“MVA”), was successful following a decision on the interpretation of that provision rendered by a judge in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Mr. Boltz’s cross-appeal from the trial judge’s decision and varied the order to dismiss the action against him. First, the trial judge erred in construing s. 86(1) of theMVA, and concluding that Tyson, a front seat passenger, was “operating” the vehicle at the time of the accident. Second, the Court of Appeal held that the consent given by Tyson for Dale to drive did not make Mr. Boltz vicariously liable for the loss caused by Dale’s negligent acts.
40389
Guy F. Therrien v. Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec
(Que.)
Elections — Election publicity
During the 2014 provincial election in Quebec, the applicant posted paid partisan publicity on the Facebook social network during the prohibited seven-day period referred to in s. 429 of the Election Act, CQLR, c. E-3.3. The respondent instituted proceedings against him. The applicant moved to dismiss the charge on the ground that s. 429 does not apply to publicity on social networks. The Court of Québec granted the motion. It stated that the charge did not correspond to any offence created by legislation in force at the material time, and it stayed the proceedings. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the appeal from the trial judgment and stated that s. 429 can apply to a platform like Facebook. It referred the case back to the Court of Québec for the adjudication of the motion for non-suit and, if necessary, the continuation of the proceedings. The applicant appealed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Quebec Court of Appeal was of the view that the prohibition against publicity in s. 429 applies to virtual posting in a virtual space like Facebook. It dismissed the appeal and referred the case back to the Court of Québec for the continuation of the proceedings before the same judge.
40400
Pharmascience Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Canada Co, Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland Unlimited Company and Pfizer Inc.
(F.C.)
Intellectual property — Patents — Medicines
The respondents (collectively, “BMS”) commenced four actions under s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, SOR/93-133 to prohibit the applicant, Pharmascience (“PMS”), from obtaining a notice of compliance to market its generic form of BMS’s product, Eliquis, an anticoagulant useful in the treatment of thromboembolic disorders. Two patents related to Eliquis were in issue: the 202 Patent related to apixaban, the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Eliquis, and the 171 Patent pertaining to the formulation of the 2.5 and 5 mg apixaban tablets.
BMS also owned the previous 330 Patent, which claimed a vast array of compounds that could potentially be useful in treating thromboembolic disorders. In 2001, BMS discovered apixaban, a compound selected from the 330 Patent, that was useful to inhibit the enzyme FXa and in treating thromboembolic disorders.
PMS sought to market its generic form of apixaban and applied to the Minister of Health for a notice of appliance to do so. PMS claimed that the 202 and 171 Patents were invalid on the basis of insufficiency, double patenting, anticipation, obviousness, overbreadth, inutility, ambiguity, and insufficiency and inutility of a selection patent. BMS applied for a prohibition order. The application judge granted BMS the prohibition order to keep PMS off the market until after the expiry of the 202 and 171 Patents. This decision was upheld on appeal.
40409
James Kot v. Attorney General of Canada
(F.C.)
Labour relations — Grievances — Jurisdiction
The applicant, James Kot, was laid off from his job with the federal Department of Transport in 2015. After being placed on a priority hiring list, he was hired by the RCMP in 2016. An amended letter of offer included a clause about Mr. Kot being subject to a one-year probationary period, as the RCMP realized Mr. Kot was being hired from “outside” the public service. Prior to the expiry of the probationary period, the RCMP sent Mr. Kot a letter indicating that he was rejected on probation, due to his unsuitability for the position, pursuant to s. 62 of the Public Service Employment Act. Mr. Kot then filed a grievance challenging the validity of his termination.
The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board determined it had no jurisdiction over Mr. Kot’s grievance. The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr. Kot’s application for judicial review of the Board’s decision.
40414
Noel Ayangma v. Prince Edward Island Teachers Federation, Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission
(P.E.I.)
Human Rights — Discriminatory practices
The applicant filed a human rights complaint with the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) alleging discrimination in the context of a job competition. The Executive Director of the Commission issued a Notice of Dismissal with reasons. The applicant then requested a review of the dismissal by the Chairperson of the Commission. The Chairperson agreed with the Executive Director’s decision to dismiss the complaint. The applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.
40442
Nestor Aguillo Valdez v. Marie Neron, Blair Gosling
(B.C.)
Damages — Non-pecuniary damages — Jury award
Applicant Nestor Aguillo Valdez was injured when his vehicle was hit from the rear by a vehicle owned and driven by respondents Marie Neron and Blair Gosling. Liability was admitted. Damages were assessed by a jury.
Mr. Valdez appealed from the jury verdict on the basis that it was unreasonable and resulted in an unjust outcome; he asked for a new trial. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted the jury’s non-pecuniary damages award, but declined to order a new trial.
