35889  Diab v. A.G. Canada  and between Diab v. Minister of Justice of Canada  (Charter — Criminal law — Extradition)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced May 15, 2014.  The applicant was wanted in France for his alleged role in a 1980 synagogue bombing that killed four and injured 40.  The record of the case relied on five pieces of evidence: the applicant’s passport, his membership in a Palestine liberation group, eyewitness descriptions of the bomber, composite sketches of the bomber resembling the applicant, and a handwriting expert’s report comparing the applicant’s handwriting to a hotel registration card filled out by the bomber.  The extradition judge found that four of the five pieces of evidence were insufficient to justify committal.  The remaining piece of evidence, the handwriting analysis, had been dismissed by the applicant’s experts as methodologically flawed and unreliable.  However, the judge concluded that although the expert’s conclusions were suspect, the evidence could not be rejected as manifestly unreliable and tipped the balance in favour of committal.  The applicant appealed on the basis that the extradition judge took an overly narrow approach to assessing the reliability of the requesting state’s evidence and misinterpreted the leading case law on the test for committal.  In addition, the applicant sought to adduce fresh evidence regarding the lack of French methodology for handwriting analysis.  He also sought review of the Minister’s order for surrender.  The Court of Appeal, however, dismissed both his appeal from committal and his application for judicial review of the Minister’s surrender order.

35975  Ellis v. The Queen  (Charter of Rights and Freedoms— Criminal Law)

On appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice pronounced April 4, 2014.  Ms. Ellis and a co-accused each were charged with five firearms offences and one count of possession of a weapon (a stun gun) for a purpose dangerous to the public.  The trial proceeded before a jury.  At the close of the Crown’s case, they applied for directed verdicts.  O’Marra J. dismissed the application with respect to the firearms counts but granted directed verdicts to each accused with respect to the counts of possession of a stun gun for a dangerous purpose.  The jury convicted the co-accused on all firearms counts but was unable to reach a verdict in respect to Ms. Ellis.  The trial judge declared a mistrial.  The Crown has commenced second trial proceedings against Ms. Ellis on charges of firearms offences.

35939  Ferron v. The Queen  (Dismissing appeal as abandoned)

On appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario pronounced May 7, 2014.  The applicant attempted to lay two informations against two Crown counsel: one for fraud and one for perjury.  The justice of the peace refused to issue process.  The applicant’s application for mandamus was dismissed.  The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal.  The appeal was eventually dismissed as abandoned.

36019  Teva Canada Limited v. Pfizer Canada Inc., et al.  (Intellectual property — Patents — Civil procedure)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced May 27, 2014.  Teva Canada Limited (“Teva”) commenced an action under s. 8 of the (PM)NOC Regulations seeking compensation for losses suffered during the relevant period including compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages and quantification of Pfizer’s profits.  Pfizer brought a motion to strike those portions of Teva’s statement of claim relating to punitive and exemplary damages and the quantification of profits. The Federal Court struck the Applicant’s pleadings for claims related to respondents’ profits, as well as the claims for punitive and exemplary damages. The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and allowed the Respondents’ appeal in part.

35952  Beaulieu v. Governors of the University of Alberta, et al.  (Jurisdiction — Collective agreement)

On appeal from the judgment of the court of Appeal for Alberta pronounced April 22, 2014.  Mr. Beaulieu was employed as a professor by the University of Alberta from 2000. His employment included research chair positions supported by funding, and was subject to the terms of a collective agreement authorized by the Post-secondary Learning Act, S.A. 2003, c. P-19.5. Starting in 2006, there have been multiple proceedings under the collective agreement involving Mr. Beaulieu, the Respondents, and others. In August 2012, Mr. Beaulieu filed a statement of claim against the Respondents for harassment, denial of access to research funding records, breach of a settlement agreement, breach of confidentiality, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and a failure to stop disciplinary proceedings to accommodate his medical condition. He sought damages and an accounting of research funding. The Respondents filed a statement of defence and advised Mr. Beaulieu’s counsel of their position that the court lacked jurisdiction. Mr. Beaulieu applied for an interlocutory injunction with respect to the dispute resolution proceedings under the collective agreement. The Respondents applied to strike the statement of claim, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the collective agreement provided an exclusive forum for resolution of the dispute.  The chambers judge struck the statement of claim, declined to grant an injunction and awarded double Column 4 costs against Mr. Beaulieu. On January 2, 2014, Mr. Beaulieu’s employment with the University was terminated. He then filed a complaint under the collective agreement regarding his existing research funding. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Beaulieu’s appeal.

36007  The Queen v. Last  (Income tax — Assessment)

On appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal pronounced May 15, 2014.  The respondent taxpayer appealed his assessments for the taxation years 2000 to 2002, challenging the Minister of National Revenue’s determination of revenues and expenses from different income-earning activities.  The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal, finding that the taxpayer was entitled to further deductions.  The Court also held that the evidence supported characterizing the proceeds of certain share transactions as business income rather than capital gains as originally reported by the taxpayer and assessed by the Minister.  While the resulting increase in tax liability on account of income would be largely offset by unrelated deductions allowed on appeal, the Court would not authorize the Minister to reassess the gains as business income because this would permit reassessment beyond the limitation period in subsections 152(4) and (4.01) of the Income Tax Act.  The same rule did not preclude assessing additional rental income, where the taxpayer’s failure to report the income constituted a misrepresentation in his income tax returns based on carelessness, neglect or wilful default.  The Court referred the assessments back to the Minister for reassessment on basis of the Court’s reasons.  The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal.