SCC No. Case Name Province of Origin Keywords

39632 Ali Moussa Ghadban v. Her Majesty the Queen BC Provincial Offenses — Motor assisted cycles

39578 0678786 B.C. Ltd., et al. v. Bennett Jones LLP, et al. AB Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors — Conflict of interest

39663 Louise Hickey v. North Atlantic Marine Supplies & Services Inc. now known as North Atlantic Offshore Inc. NL Contracts — Formation — Settlement agreement

39692 Mill Street & Co. Inc., et al. v. Madison Joe Holdings Inc. ON Suretyship — Contracts — Guarantors

39665 Christopher Gero v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Right to life, liberty and security of the person

39662 Apotex Inc. v. Shire LLC, et al. FederalCourt Intellectual property — Patents — Medicines

39729 M.L.R. and F.A.M., parents of “Infant A” v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of Education, et al. BC Civil procedure — Time — Extension of time

39634

Guillaume St-Louis v. Her Majesty the Queen(Que.)

The applicant, Guillaume St‑Louis, is a police officer who was tried for his alleged actions during the arrest of the complainant, Alexandre Hébert, on the morning of December 9, 2014, when Mr. Hébert was driving in the residential neighbourhood where he lived. The reason given by Mr. St‑Louis for stopping the complainant was that his car windows were tinted too darkly. Three charges were laid against Mr. St‑Louis under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46 (Cr. C.): assault with a weapon under s. 267(a), assault causing bodily harm under s. 267(b) and careless use of a prohibited weapon under s. 86(1). At trial, the applicant and the complainant testified and gave diametrically opposed versions of the events surrounding the complainant’s arrest. The Court of Québec judge found Mr. St‑Louis guilty of assault with a weapon under s. 267(a) and assault causing bodily harm under s. 267(b) Cr. C. He entered a stay of proceedings on the count of assault with a weapon under s. 267(a) Cr. C. based on the rule against multiple convictions. Mr. St‑Louis was acquitted of careless use of a prohibited weapon under s. 86(1) Cr. C. The Superior Court, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, dismissed the appeal from the conviction. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

39632

Ali Moussa Ghadban v. Her Majesty the Queen(B.C.)

Provincial Offenses — Motor assisted cycles

The applicant, Mr. Ghadban, was charged with driving without a driver’s licence and without insurance after riding his electric scooter, a Motorino XMr, on a public road. Mr. Ghadban believed that his electric scooter fell within the definition of “motor assisted cycle” so that he did not require a driver’s licence and insurance to operate it. The electric scooter can be pedalled but its motor cannot be used while pedaling. It either operates as a low-powered electric motorcycle, with the motor providing all of the motive force, or as a heavy bicycle, with the motor not operating. The Provincial Court held that the electric scooter was not a motor assisted cycle because its primary method of propulsion was not human power. The Supreme Court of British Columbia and a majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Ghadban’s appeals, agreeing that the Provincial Court made no error of law. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that motor assisted cycles must be designed to contemplate human power being a primary means of propulsion, and must allow for a person to pedal at the same time as the motor is providing assistance.

39578

0678786 B.C. Ltd. v. Bennett Jones LLP, Robert W. Staley, Raj S. Sahni, Jonathan G. Bell, Ilan Ishai, Grant N. Stapon, Voorheis & Co. LLP

- and between -

0678786 B.C. Ltd., 8028702 Canada Inc. v. Bennett Jones LLP, Robert W. Staley, Raj S. Sahni, Jonathan G. Bell, Ilan Ishai, Amanda C. McLachlan, Derek Bell, Grant N. Stapon, Voorheis & Co. LLP(Alta.)

Law of professions — Barristers and solicitors — Conflict of interest

An Ontario law firm asked Bennett Jones to provide advice and opinions concerning the merits, strategy and structuring of a possible class action against an Ontario company. The lawyer who provided the advice created notes that were subject to solicitor-client privilege, and they made reference to a third party lenders. Bennett Jones was later retained to represent one of the third party lenders in CCAA proceedings against the same Ontario company, and the Ontario law firm was retained to represent the Chief Restructuring Officer. No mention of the earlier contact or the notes was made by either firm. The third party lender later began a suit against Bennett Jones. The notes were included in the disclosure provided by Bennett Jones. Upon realizing that it had included the notes in the disclosure, Bennett Jones began its attempts to obtain their return, first with the third party lender’s counsel, and then by initiating the instant application. The third party lenders began a second action which differed from the first only in their reference to the notes.

The parties agreed that the notes were privileged. The case management judge found that there had been no waiver of privilege. He ordered their return, made other orders to protect the privilege, and dismissed the second action. He declined to remove the third party lenders’ new counsel from the file. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

39663

Louise Hickey v. North Atlantic Marine Supplies & Services Inc. now known as North Atlantic Offshore Inc.(N.L.)

Contracts — Formation — Settlement agreement

Ms. Hickey commenced an action for damages and pay in lieu of notice following her dismissal from employment by North Atlantic Marine Supplies and Services Inc. Counsel commenced negotiations to settle the claim. Based on counsel’s communications, Ms. Hickey claimed that a settlement agreement had been reached. A motions judge granted summary judgment to Ms. Hickey. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and set aside the summary judgment.

Suretyship — Contracts — Guarantors

A purchase of shares was financed with a lending agreement with a bank and promissory notes backed by guarantees. When the notes matured the notes holder demanded payment of principal and interest. The bank exercised a right under the lending agreement and refused to consent to the payments. A motions judge granted summary judgment against the principal debtor for the interest due under the notes and against the guarantors for both the principal and interest due under the notes. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.

39665

Christopher Gero v. Her Majesty the Queen(Ont.)

Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Right to life, liberty and security of the person

The Toronto Police Service received a tip from a CI that the CI had recently purchased drugs from the applicant, Mr. Gero, at his apartment. A search warrant was executed. During a search of the applicant’s apartment, the police found packaging materials, two digital scales, an electrical grinder covered in drug residue, a drug press, cocaine, Oxycocet pills, and cash. The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrant pursuant to ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter. Both of the lower courts held that the step six procedure does not breach s. 7 or s. 8 of the Charter. The applicant was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of the proceeds of crime. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

39662

Apotex Inc. v. Shire LLC, Shire Pharma Canada ULC(F.C.)

The Shire respondents (“Shire”) own the 646 Patent entitled “Abuse Resistant Amphetamine Compounds” related to the compound lisdexamfetamine (“LDX”), its compounds, methods of delivery and use in the treatment of Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder. An important drawback to both immediate and sustained release formulations of amphetamine is their potential for abuse. The 646 Patent addressed the need for an abuse-resistant dosage of amphetamine that was therapeutically effective. Apotex Inc., a generic drug manufacturer, served Notices of Allegation on Shire, seeking to obtain a Notice of Compliance from the Minister of Health to market its generic version of LDX under the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance Regulations, SOR/93‑133. Shire responded by filing prohibition applications under s. 6(1) of the Regulations, to prevent the Minister from issuing a NOC to Apotex until after the expiry of its 646 Patent. Apotex also commenced an impeachment action under s. 60 of the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P‑4 for declarations that the 646 Patent was invalid on the grounds of anticipation, obviousness, overbreadth or insufficiency of specification. The Federal Court dismissed the impeachment action and granted the order of prohibition sought by Shire. These decisions were upheld on appeal.

39729

M.L.R. and F.A.M., parents of “Infant A” v. Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Ministry of Education, Coquitlam Board of Education of School District #43, BC Attorney General and BC Human Rights Tribunal, Coquitlam School District # 43(B.C.)

The applicants applied for leave to have Dr. Ayangma, a non‑lawyer, to represent them in two legal proceedings they had brought before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

Although Holmes J. acknowledged that the court had discretion to allow representation by a non-lawyer based on the court’s assessment of the interests of justice, she found that Dr. Ayangma’s participation in this appeal was not likely to further the interests of justice. The applicants applied for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was filed approximately 18 months late. The extension of time was denied. Dr. Ayangma was granted leave to present oral arguments on appeal. On the assumption that the decision was open to appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.