36567 Kwok Wah Lee v. Michael Kwok Wing Lee
Civil procedure – Appeals
The applicant brought an action against the respondent for fraud with respect to monies the respondent allegedly provided to the applicant for the purchase of a home in 1984, in exchange for an interest in the home. The applicant’s claims were dismissed at trial. Several months later, he applied for an extension of time in which to appeal the trial judge’s decision. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed both the applicant’s motion for an extension of time and application to vary that order.
36508 Manickavasagar Kanagendran v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Immigration – Judicial review – Inadmissibility on security grounds
The applicant Mr. Kanagendran is a citizen of Sri Lanka who was a member of a political organization and a member of parliament from 2004 to 2007. He was found inadmissible to apply for refugee protection by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada on security ground. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada found that membership to this political organization tantamount to membership in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a terrorist organization. The Application for judicial review was dismissed and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
36489 Adam Soboczynski, Olga Soboczynski v. Don Beauchamp, Louise Beauchamp
Property — Real property — Torts
Shortly after the applicant purchasers bought a home from the respondent vendors, the basement flooded. After learning of a pre-closing flood, the purchasers sued the vendors for damages based on negligent misrepresentation, arguing that the Seller Property Information Statement required the vendors to disclose the pre-closing flood to them.
The trial judge dismissed the action. He found that if the purchasers had been successful, they would have been entitled to $25,000 in damages for negligent misrepresentation. The Divisional Court disagreed with the trial judge’s conclusion. It allowed the appeal and awarded damages of $25,000. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of Divisional court and restored the trial judge’s decision dismissing the action.
36498 Cathy Duffield, Rahim Basaria v. City of Prince Albert
Municipal law – Enactment of bylaws
Cathy Duffield and Rahim Basaria are respectively the general manager and owner of the National Hotel in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, who off-sale liquor by means of a drive-thru service. The City of Prince Albert enacted a bylaw prohibiting taxicab owners and drivers from driving their taxicabs through off-sale, drive-thru liquor outlets in Prince Albert. The applicants asked the Court of Queen's Bench to quash the bylaw on the basis that the procedure for its passage did not comply with the requirements of s. 77 of The Cities Act, SS 2002, c C-11.1, and because the subject-matter of the bylaw is ultra vires the bylaw-making powers of Prince Albert as it regulates the sale of alcohol, a provincial concern.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the applicants’ application to quash the bylaw. The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dismissed the applicants’ appeal, finding the passage of the bylaw complied with The Cities Act and was not ultra vires the powers of the City.
36524 Her Majesty the Queen v. Michael Bruce Newman
Criminal law – Offences – Elements of offence
Mr. Newman was convicted of first degree murder. The victim was killed in his apartment after a prolonged struggle during which he was stabbed and shot multiple times. The trial judge concluded that Mr. Newman inflicted most, if not all, of the stab wounds, and fired the fatal shot into the back of the victim’s head. He further found that Mr. Newman fired that shot intending to cause the victim’s death. The trial judge convicted Mr. Newman of first degree murder on the basis that he caused the victim’s death while committing or attempting to commit the offence of forcible confinement, pursuant to s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Newman appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended certain evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to establish forcible confinement. The majority of the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr. Newman’s second ground and substituted a conviction for second degree murder. It was of the view that the confinement portion of the attack on the victim was coextensive with the acts that caused his death, rather than a separate act as required for a first degree murder conviction under s. 231(5)(e). Smith J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal.
36563 Martine Labossière v. Her Majesty the Queen, Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions and Attorney General of Quebec
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Motion for leave to appeal
On February 27, 2013, the applicant was issued a statement of offence for driving at a speed in excess of the maximum speed allowed, contrary to section 328 of the Highway Safety Code. The applicant contested the statement of offence in a trial in the Municipal Court. The appeal was dismissed.
36545 C.G. v. Public Curator of Quebec
Civil procedure – Motion for leave to appeal
On January 27, 2010, the Superior Court ordered the institution of protective supervision in favour of the applicant’s mother in the form of tutorship to the person and to property. At the same time, the Public Curator of Quebec (“PCQ”) was appointed tutor to the person and to property for the applicant’s mother. About 18 months later, the applicant initiated legal action to have the tutor replaced, which led to multiple proceedings over more than four years. In response to a new motion for a change of tutor, the PCQ asked that the motion be declared improper and therefore dismissed and that the applicant be declared to be a vexatious and quarrelsome litigant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal.
36522 Edward Lac v. Attorney General of Canada
Administrative law – Judicial review – Mootness
Edward Lac, an inmate at Matsqui Institution, brought an application for judicial review in the Federal Court from a second-level grievance decision made under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620. The decision under review was that of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner dismissing Mr. Lac’s appeal from the decision rendered by the Assistant Warden denying Mr. Lac’s request to be transferred from Matsqui, a medium security facility, to Ferndale Institution, a minimum security facility. A few days before the decision of the Federal Court was rendered, Mr. Lac was released from incarceration on statutory release.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review because the applicant had not exhausted all of the remedies available in the grievance process under the legislation before bringing his application. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that it was moot.
36484 Her Majesty the Queen v. Aaron Sealy
Criminal law – Defences – Evidence
The respondent was convicted of murdering his aunt and his uncle. He challenged the verdicts, alleging a mental disorder. He had already been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2008. He had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on various charges, including robbery and assault with a weapon. The diagnosis was gradually changed to antisocial personality and schizoid personality. Mr. Sealy was then granted an absolute discharge in November 2008 by the Administrative Tribunal of Québec acting as a Review Board. The homicides in question were committed less than two weeks later, and the respondent was arrested in December 2008. Two psychiatrists found that he displayed symptoms of schizophrenia. At the opening of the trial, before the jury was selected, counsel for the respondent stated that, according to a psychiatrist, several tests had to be done due to the deterioration in the respondent’s condition and it would take 30 days to assess him. That need was reiterated at the voir dire. The trial judge opted to continue the trial and ordered a psychiatric assessment within a short period of time, without granting the defence’s request for an adjournment. Mr. Sealy was convicted. The judge refrained from affirming the verdict, dissolved the jury and told the jurors that they would be recalled later. Dr. Bouchard, a psychiatrist, noted that it was difficult to assess Mr. Sealy, who denied the events. Dr. Chamberland, a psychiatrist serving as an expert for the prosecution, filed a second assessment in which he concluded that there was no indication that Mr. Sealy might have been incapable of appreciating the quality of his acts or of knowing they were wrong and that there were elements militating in favour of criminal responsibility. The same day, the judge affirmed the verdict. The Superior Court gave two guilty verdicts: first degree murder and second degree murder. The Appeal was allowed, the guilty verdicts were set aside and a new trial was ordered.
36387 Daniel E. Williams v. Brad Cabana
In June 2012, Mr. Williams and Alderon Iron Ore Corp. commenced an action for defamation against Mr. Cabana. On December 5, 2014, Mr. Cabana applied to have the statement of claim struck on the basis that the courthouse in Corner Brook had been named after Mr. Williams. Mr. Cabana submitted that because Mr. Williams is a member of the practicing bar, there was a question as to the possible effect, if any, on the perception of the administration of justice. Having been advised by the Premier regarding the naming of the courthouse, Acting Chief Justice Orsborn (now Orsborn C.J.) had written to the Premier in August, 2014.
At the hearing of Mr. Cabana’s application, Orsborn C.J. concluded that neither he nor any of his Trial Division colleagues should hear the application. He made a request to the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and Labrador to appoint a judge from the Court of Appeal to sit as a Trial Division judge for the purpose of the application. An order was granted to this effect and a judge of the Court of Appeal was appointed.
Mr. Williams then applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the interlocutory order of Orsborn C.J. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed
36540 Lorence William Hud v. Attorney General of Canada
Civil procedure – Appeal from order on motion to strike
A prothonotary of the Federal Court dismissed Mr. Hud’s statement of claim against the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and unnamed and unidentified representatives of the Canada Revenue Agency. A judge of the Federal Court dismissed Mr. Hud’s appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal settled the contents of the appeal book and dismissed Mr. Hud’s requests that the appeal book be settled by the Administrator of that court, and that the appeal book include evidence in addition to the statement of claim. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed two motions brought by Mr. Hud to reconsider the order settling the contents of the appeal book.
36586 J. Robert Verdun v. Robert M. Astley
Civil procedure — Civil contempt
The second contempt motion at the root of this leave application stems from a defamation action for which the Applicant was found guilty and from which he has unsuccessfully appealed both the verdict and his first contempt action. The Court of Appeal amended the endorsement: Applicant’s passport to be returned to him by Superior Court; Applicant to attend Court of Appeal hearing and surrender his passport to Court; if appeal dismissed for failure to perfect or pay security, order for stay pending appeal automatically terminated and warrant of committal to continue in full force and effect.