39305 Lloyd’s Underwriters (as insurer of SNC-Lavalin Inc., formerly doing business as Terratech Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Environnement Inc., and Alain Blanchette), et al. v. Lise Deguise and Christian Yard, et al. QC Civil liability — Professional liability — Failure to warn
39434 Restaurant Le Relais de Saint-Jean inc., et al. c. Agence du revenu du Québec, et al. QC Civil liability — Conduct of tax authorities during tax audit
Her Majesty the Queen v. Mélanie Ste-Marie- and between -Her Majesty the Queen v. Michel Ste-Marie- and between -Her Majesty the Queen v. Dax Ste-Marie- and between -Her Majesty the Queen v. Richard Felx(Que.)
Charter of Rights — Criminal law — Right to be tried within a reasonable time
The four respondents were charged with conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime, laundering proceeds of crime, and commission of an offence for a criminal organization. In the Court of Québec, the respondents moved for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay. The Court of Québec found that s. 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed but declined to stay the proceedings. It convicted the respondents of the offences charged. On appeal from the guilty verdicts, the Quebec Court of Appeal had to determine whether the Court of Québec had erred in declining to stay the proceedings after finding unreasonable delay. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeals, quashed the convictions and ordered a stay of proceedings.
Louis-Pierre Lafortune v. Her Majesty the Queen(Que.)
The applicant was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime (s. 465(1)(c) Cr. C.). The applicant and the prosecutor appealed the trial judge’s decision granting a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal in part. On appeal, the applicant essentially argued that his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted on all the counts that concerned him. In addition, he argued mainly that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable. The prosecutor, on the other hand, took the view that the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should not have been granted with respect to the applicant and that the counts in the indictment that concerned him should have been put to the jury. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the applicant’s guilty verdict, the applicant’s motion for a stay of proceedings and the prosecutor’s appeal.
Roberto Amato v. Her Majesty the Queen(Que.)
The applicant was found guilty by a jury of the following offences: conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime (s. 465(1)(c) Cr. C.); a criminal organization offence (s. 467.12 Cr. C.); and laundering proceeds of crime (s. 462.31 Cr. C.). The applicant and the prosecutor appealed the trial judge’s decision granting a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal in part. On appeal, the applicant essentially argued that his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted on all the counts that concerned him. In addition, he argued mainly that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable in relation to several counts. The prosecutor, on the other hand, took the view that the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should not have been granted with respect to a co‑accused, Mr. Lafortune, and that the counts in the indictment that concerned him should have been put to the jury. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of Mr. Amato and Mr. Lafortune from the guilty verdicts, Mr. Lafortune’s motion for a stay of proceedings and the prosecutor’s appeal.
Lloyd’s Underwriters (as insurer of SNC-Lavalin Inc., formerly doing business as Terratech Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Environnement Inc., and Alain Blanchette) v. Lise Deguise et al.
- and between –
AIG Insurance Company of Canada (formerly known as Chartis Insurance Company of Canada) (as insurer of SNC-Lavalin Inc., formerly doing business as Terratech Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Environnement Inc., and Alain Blanchette) v. Denis Trahan et al.
- and between –
Zurich Insurance Company Ltd (as insurer of SNC-Lavalin Inc. and Alain Blanchette) v. Lise Deguise et al.
- and between –
Chubb Insurance Company of Canada (as insurer of SNC-Lavalin Inc. and Alain Blanchette) v. Lise Deguise et al.
- and between –
SNC-Lavalin Inc. (formerly doing business as Terratech Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Environnement Inc.) and Alain Blanchette v. Denis Trahan et al.
- and between –
AIG Insurance Company of Canada (formerly known as Chartis Insurance Company) (as insurer of Carrière B & B inc. and Béton Laurentide inc.) v. Denis Trahan et al.(Que.)
Civil liability — Professional liability — Failure to warn
This matter, referred to over the years as the “pyrrhotite case”, has been in the headlines for more than 10 years, causing much ink to flow and fueling discussions in the construction community in Canada. Pyrrhotite is an iron sulphide sometimes found in deposits mined to extract concrete stone aggregate. Its presence can be deleterious, as it is known to cause highly undesirable chemical reactions. Upon oxidation, pyrrhotite can cause concrete to expand internally. As concrete is used as a construction material in most building foundations, the presence of pyrrhotite can accordingly lead to the degradation and weakening of building structures.
The pyrrhotite litigation first dealt with by the lower courts was divided into three groups or “waves”, the first involving 832 buildings — that is, 446 single‑family residences, 312 semi‑detached residences, 56 multi‑unit residential immovables and 18 commercial immovables. The foundations of these buildings were damaged by the presence of pyrrhotite in the concrete aggregate used to build them. The litigation encompasses more than 880 actions which were divided, at first instance, among 69 court files. More than 800 appeals were filed with the Québec Court of Appeal, by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and their insurers.
The various actions were launched against the general contractors or formworkers involved in building the foundations; the concrete suppliers who supplied the problematic concrete; the corporation that mined the quarry where the deleterious aggregate was extracted; Alain Blanchette, the geologist who approved the use of aggregate extracted from the quarry, and the successor to his employer, SNC‑Lavalin Inc.; and the insurance companies that entered into contracts with any of the parties being sued. The trial judge ultimately held that, with some exceptions, the contractors, the corporation that mined the quarry, SNC‑Lavalin and Alain Blanchette and their insurers were liable in solidum. He apportioned liability in accordance with article 469 of the former Code of Civil Procedure. The apportionment of liability between the defendants for the damage caused to the plaintiffs for most of the residential cases was determined as follows: SNC‑Lavalin Inc. and Alain Blanchette are liable in solidum for the period from May 2003 to November 28, 2007 (70%); the quarry owner and concrete suppliers are liable in solidum (25%, to be divided in two, i.e., 12.5% for the concrete supplier at issue and 12.5% for the quarry); and the independent contractors and formworkers were liable in solidum (5%). The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in part, with respect to the apportionment of liability between defendants and the applications for forced intervention. The court reduced the liability of the contractors to 0%. The court also determined that the insurance tower covering SNC‑Lavalin for the 2009‑2010 policy period was not eroded by the payment of costs and expenses in the settlement of the Keystone litigation in Alberta.
Restaurant Le Relais de Saint-Jean inc., Argyris Chionis v. Agence du revenu du Québec, Attorney General of Canada (Canada Revenue Agency)(Que.)
In 2003, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”) conducted a tax audit of Restaurant Le Relais de Saint‑Jean inc. (“Restaurant”). On the basis of the audit, the ARQ issued a notice of assessment for the difference between the reported and the estimated income. It also claimed related taxes, interest and penalties. The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) later issued a notice of assessment against the Restaurant as well. The Restaurant sent notices of objection to the tax authorities. In 2009, the Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) allowed the Restaurant’s appeal from the notices of assessment and cancelled the additional tax, finding that the ARQ had used an arbitrary audit method that was not justified in the circumstances. In 2012, the Restaurant and Argyris Chionis, who was in charge of managing its operations and who was its non‑apparent owner, filed a civil liability action against the ARQ and the CRA, alleging that they had committed a fault and acted wrongfully in processing the Restaurant’s tax files. The Superior Court dismissed the applicants’ action, finding that most of the claims were prescribed and that the respondents were not at fault. The Court of Appeal held that the applicants’ action was not prescribed and that the starting point for prescription was the date of the TCC’s judgment. Nevertheless, it upheld the trial judge’s conclusions about the absence of fault and dismissed the appeal.
Harinderdeep Singh Brar v. Her Majesty the Queen(Alta.)
The applicant was charged with a single count of fraud over $5,000 against TD Canada Trust. The prosecution’s theory of the case was that the applicant had deposited a series of cheques into a TD Canada Trust account held by Anet Systems Ltd. (a corporation of which he was the sole shareholder and director), knowing that there were not sufficient funds in the payor accounts to cover the cheques, and that he withdrew significant amounts from the TD account before the cheques were returned NSF. The Crown sought to admit the exhibits through s. 29 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c C‑5. The trial judge concluded on the basis of uncontradicted affidavit evidence that certain TD Canada Trust records — including stills from ATM and branch surveillance cameras—were admissible pursuant to s. 29 of the Canada Evidence Act. The applicant was convicted of fraud over $5000.00. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, and dismissed the conviction appeal.
Daniel Theodore, Andrew Bellegarde v. Her Majesty the Queen(Sask.)
A drug dealer was fatally shot. His body was dismembered and decapitated before disposal. Mr. Theodore, Mr. Bellegarde and Mr. Gordon tried jointly before a jury. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Bellegarde are Indigenous. Mr. Theodore is Caucasian. Mr. Bellegarde is a member of an Indigenous street gang. Mr. Theodore and Mr. Gordon were partners in drug dealing and Mr. Gordon supplied the Indigenous street gang. Potential jurors were not challenged for cause or otherwise pre-screened for racial bias. The jury charge did not include a specific instruction on the need to set aside racial biases about Indigenous persons. A jury found Mr. Theodore, Mr. Bellegarde and Mr. Gordon guilty of first degree murder and Mr. Theodore and Mr. Bellegarde guilty of offering an indignity to the drug dealer’s remains. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals.
Vinh Phat Steven Dong (a.k.a Steven Dong), Maijan Holdings inc., BLIIP Box inc. v. Royal Pacific Real Estate Group Ltd., Royal Pacific Realty (Kingsway) Ltd.(B.C.)
Royal Pacific Real Estate Group Ltd. is the proprietor of a registered trade‑mark in Canada. Together with Royal Pacific Realty (Kingsway) Ltd., the entities are part of a group of companies in the business of real estate sales. Steven Dong was licensed to act as a real estate representative with Royal Pacific Kingsway from 2012 to 2013. He owns Steven Real Estate Developments, Maijan Holdings Inc., and Bliip Box Inc. Mr. Dong was provided with an oral or unwritten license to use the marks at issue in the course of his employment. By the summer of 2012, Mr. Dong had created a website which combined information about Mr. Dong in his capacity as a sales representative of Royal Pacific Kingsway with a social media referral application called Bliip Box. The Real Estate Council of British Columbia (the “Council”) informed Mr. Dong that certain aspects of his website did not comply with its regulations. A manager of several Royal Pacific Group brokerages reviewed the website and sent an email to Mr. Dong outlining what he considered to be the deficiencies in the website. Mr. Dong solicited business for Bliip Box using Royal Pacific’s trading names and Royal Pacific’s contact information and he registered a new website, royalpacific.co. Royal Pacific expressed concern that customers would confuse Mr. Dong’s additional services as being endorsed by Royal Pacific. Mr. Dong refused to take down his website or cease using the Royal Pacific trade names. The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that Mr. Dong infringed Royal Pacific’s intellectual property and committed the tort of passing off. Mr. Dong’s appeal was unanimously dismissed.
Daniel Lorne Snooks v. Attorney General of Canada, Linda Giordano, in her capacity as warden of the Special Handling Unit(Que.)
In 2018, the applicant, who is an Indigenous person, was serving a sentence at a medium‑security penitentiary. After the applicant was charged with aggravated assault against a fellow inmate, his case management team recommended an increase in his security classification and a transfer to a maximum‑security penitentiary. He was transferred first to a maximum‑security penitentiary and then to the Special Handling Unit (“SHU”). The applicant filed an application for habeas corpus in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court, alleging that his transfer to the SHU was an unlawful deprivation of his liberty. The Superior Court dismissed the application for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeal found that the transfer decision was an administrative decision and therefore civil in nature and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) applied in this case. Since the applicant had not complied with the 10‑day time limit for appealing set out in art. 361 C.C.P., the Court of Appeal found and declared that the applicant’s right to appeal had been forfeited and dismissed the appeal.
Justin Germa v. Attorney General of Canada, Josée Tremblay, in her capacity as warden of Donnacona Institution, Stéphane Lalande, in his capacity as warden of Archambault Institution(Que.)
In 2018, the applicant, who is an Indigenous person, was in custody at a medium‑security institution. In November 2018, he was found in possession of drugs and placed in segregation. In December 2018, his case management team recommended an increase in his security classification and a transfer to a maximum‑security penitentiary. The recommendation was approved by the warden of the penitentiary. The applicant filed an application for habeas corpus in the Criminal Division of the Superior Court, alleging that the increase in his security classification and his transfer constituted an unlawful deprivation of his liberty. The Superior Court dismissed the application for habeas corpus. The Court of Appeal found that the transfer decision was an administrative decision and therefore civil in nature and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) applied in this case. Since the applicant had not complied with the 10‑day time limit for appealing set out in art. 361 C.C.P., the Court of Appeal found and declared that the applicant’s right to appeal had been forfeited and dismissed the appeal.
Robert Anthony Paul v. Attorney General of Canada, Stéphane Lalande, in his capacity as warden of Archambault Institution, Geneviève Thibeault, in her capacity as warden of the Federal Training Centre-minimum(Que.)
In 2019, the applicant was serving a sentence at a minimum‑security penitentiary. Following allegations that he had stolen food and trafficked in contraband, his case management team recommended an increase in his security classification and a transfer to a medium‑security penitentiary. Before the warden of the penitentiary made a decision, the applicant was given three documents containing the information on which the decision would be based and was allowed to file written representations. He was not given some information that was protected. The warden approved the case management team’s recommendation, and the applicant was transferred to a medium‑security penitentiary. Alleging that his transfer was unlawful, including because of failure to give information, the applicant filed an application for habeas corpus with the Superior Court, which dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and stated in obiter that the Code of Civil Procedure applies to habeas corpus proceedings in relation to the classification or transfer of inmates.
Wallace Platt v. Canada Revenue Agency(Ont.)
The applicant owes money to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The applicant states that he and the CRA had a verbal agreement that he make monthly payments to the CRA in order to discharge the amount owing. Then, the CRA froze the applicant’s bank accounts. The applicant commenced an action against the CRA in Small Claims Court. The CRA successful brought a motion to strike the applicant’s action. The applicant’s appeal of that decision was dismissed. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal.
Bobbie Mann v. Her Majesty the Queen(F.C.)
The applicant taxpayer was issued notices of reassessment relating to numerous taxation years which resulted in taxes and penalties owing. The initial amounts owing were $5.5 million but were eventually reduced to about $400, 000. The applicant wanted to appeal this decision on the basis that the assessment audit and review process constituted an abuse of process.
The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the applicant’s motion seeking dismissal of the taxation reassessment. The motion to strike reply and grant appeal was dismissed. A single judge of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for filing a notice of appeal from the Tax Court decision. The applicant’s subsequent motion sought direction to see if the Federal Court of Appeal’s order could be appealed to a three‑person panel. That motion was also dismissed.
3295036 Canada Inc. v. Agence du revenu du Québec(Que.)
This case concerns a tax planning technique called the “Quebec shuffle”. On March 8, 2011, the respondent, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”), made two assessments against the applicant, 3295036 Canada Inc. (“3295036”), for the taxation years ending on September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2008. In the notice of assessment for the 2007 taxation year, the ARQ disallowed the carry‑forward of a net capital loss of $805,964 that 3295036 had allegedly claimed mistakenly for the taxation year ending on September 30, 2000. For the 2008 taxation year, the ARQ disallowed the carry‑forward of a net capital loss of $3,635,667 that 3295036 had allegedly claimed mistakenly for the 2000 taxation year, and the ARQ added a taxable capital gain of $2,744,654 that 3295036 had allegedly failed to include in its income. In making the assessments in issue, the ARQ relied on the specific anti‑avoidance rule set out in s. 529.1 of the Taxation Act, CQLR, c. I‑3. However, 3295036 was of the view that that rule did not apply in this case.
Mahbubur Rahman v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration(F.C.)
On October 10, 2019, a visa officer rejected the applicant’s application for a study permit. The applicant challenged that decision by way of an application for leave to apply for judicial review under s. 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”). The Federal Court dismissed the application for leave to commence an application for judicial review. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal. It was accepted for filing without prejudice to the respondent to challenge the timelines or the legality of the appeal. The respondent brought a motion under Rule 74 of the Federal Court Rules to quash the appeal and to remove the Notice from the record as there was no right of appeal from an order of the Federal Court dismissing leave. The Federal Court of Appeal granted the respondent’s motion, quashed the appeal and removed the Notice from the record.
Agence du revenu du Québec v. Philippe Custeau, Charles Custeau(Que.)
This case relates to the application of the general anti‑avoidance rule (“GAAR”). The applicant, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”), was of the view that the respondents, Philippe Custeau and Charles Custeau, had carried out a series of transactions that included avoidance transactions, which had given rise to a tax benefit that was an abuse of ss. 517.1 and 570 of the Taxation Act, CQLR, c. I‑3. On December 10, 2013, the ARQ made a tax assessment against each of them for the 2006 taxation year, which had the effect of adding a deemed dividend of $499,950 to the income of each for that year. Philippe Custeau and Charles Custeau believed that the GAAR did not apply in this case. They asked the Court of Québec to vacate the assessments made against them by the ARQ. The Court of Québec allowed the appeals from the tax assessments and vacated the notices of assessment. The ARQ appealed the trial judgment, but the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Vimal Chandra Iyer v. Her Majesty the Queen(Alta.)
Through Trident Properties Ltd., Mr. Iyer sold interests in land developments. The lands however proved to be undevelopable for 25 to 40 years. Mr. Iyer spent some invested funds on personal luxury items. Mr. Iyer was charged with fraud for failing to reveal the unlikelihood that the land could be developed, representations intended to keep the investors from withdrawing funds or spending money held by Trident Properties Ltd. for purposes other than improving the value of the investments. A jury found Mr. Iyer guilty on 33 counts of fraud over $5000 under s. 380 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
Balraj Shoan v. Attorney General of Canada(F.C.)
The applicant commenced an application under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, for judicial review of the decision of the Governor in Council and promulgated by Order in Council to terminate the applicant’s good behaviour appointment as Commissioner for Ontario of the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for cause. The Federal Court found that the process leading up to the Order in Council was procedurally fair, and concluded that the Order in Council was substantively reasonable. The Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review of the Order in Council. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
0799701 B.C. Ltd., Ramona Rina Amiri, Sirus Familamiri v. Canex Investment Corporation
- and between -
0799701 B.C. Ltd., Ramona Rina Amiri, Sirus Familamiri v. Cube 4 Construction & Design Ltd.(B.C.)
Commercial law — Corporations — Joint venture
The applicant, 0799701 B.C. Ltd., is a company (the “Company”) established in 2007 by majority shareholder and director Mr. Familamiri, together with minority shareholders, Canex Investment Corporation (“Canex”) and Cube 4 Construction & Design Ltd. (“Cube 4”) for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of land in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia (“Suffolk lands”). Mr. Familamiri and Ms. Amiri (the “personal defendants”) are father and daughter and they also own and control the closely‑held family company, Flame Engineering and Construction (“Flame”), which provides management and other services to Mr. Familamiri’s projects, including services to the Company. Ms. Amiri maintained the financial records for both the Company and for Flame and also served as director of the Company.
The principals of Canex and Cube 4, Mr. Baikoghli and Mr. Sohrabi, made investments to the Company for their respective shareholdings. In July 2010, Mr. Familamiri, Ms. Amiri and Flame began a course of conduct that led to Canex and Cube 4, together with their principals, to seek oppression remedies under the Business Corporations Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 57 (“BCA”). The Company took out a mortgage against the Suffolk properties, the Company’s only significant asset, most of which was paid by the Company to Flame for the benefit of the personal defendants. Subsequently, the Company sold the Suffolk properties. On completion of the sale, the mortgage was paid out from the proceeds. Ms. Amiri also sent Canex and Cube 4 revised financial statements for 2010 and 2011, which showed charges to the Company for management fees and interest and other changes. The effect of these financial restatements and the mortgage was to deprive Canex and Cube 4 of most of the value of their investment in the Company. Canex and Cube 4 immediately commenced proceedings against the Company, Ms. Amiri and Mr. Familamiri under the oppression remedy provisions of the BCA. The trial judge held that their actions were oppressive. She awarded Canex and Cube 4 damages in the amount they sought for the return of their investments. She declined to award punitive damages. Her decision regarding the oppression remedy was upheld. The Court of Appeal also awarded Canex and Cube 4 punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.
Ahasanullah Chowdhury v. City of Toronto, Toronto Police Services Board, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Bangladeshi-Canadian Community Services(Ont.)
Toronto Community Housing Corporation is a corporation providing residential rental accommodation in the city of Toronto. The corporation is owned by the city of Toronto. Ahasanullah Chowdhury is a tenant of Toronto Community Housing Corporation. Mr. Chowdhury commenced an action in 2014 against the same respondents named in this application that was dismissed (including subsequent appeals). Mr. Chowdhury filed a statement of claim for these proceedings in 2019. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 21.011(b) of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194. The motion’s judge granted the motion to strike on the basis that it plead no recognized legal action and was an abuse of process. The subsequent appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.
Volodymyr Hrabovskyy v. DAS Legal Protection Inc., ASEQ/Studentcare, Desjardins Financial Security Life Assurance Company(Que.)
The applicant claims he was covered by a legal protection insurance contract while he was a student. He asks the defendants to pay his legal fees, to represent him in his proceedings against his university, and to pay various indemnities. The Superior Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the ground that it was unfounded in law and declared it abusive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and declare it abusive.
The applicant sued the respondents under a travel insurance policy. The Superior Court dismissed the applicant statement of claim and declared it abusive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that the proposed appeal had no reasonable chance of success.
Charter of Rights — Environmental law — Offences
In response to a significant discharge of mine waste into the environment, the applicants, as operators of the corporate defendant, Banks Island Gold, were charged along with the corporation and others, with contraventions of both provincial and federal environmental legislation. Four officers flew over the relevant sites, confirming that spills had occurred at each. After landing, they visited the two sites, obtained samples, and then took a joint statement from the applicants, Mr. Meckert and Mr. Mossman. A voir dire was held to determine whether the observational evidence gathered on the visit, the Spill Report, and the statements taken on two occasions should be excluded on the basis that they had been obtained in breach of the applicants’ Charter rights. The trial judge applied a contextual approach consistent with R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, to determine whether Charter breaches had occurred, and concluded that some of the evidence was admissible. Mr. Mossman was convicted on two counts. Mr. Meckert was acquitted on all counts. On summary conviction appeal, the Crown was successful and most of the applicants’ claims were rejected however, they were partially successful in having the verdicts set aside and a new trial ordered.The judge hearing the appeal to the BC Supreme Court agreed with the contextual framework used by the trial judge to assess Charter breaches, and found he had correctly admitted the observational evidence and the Spill Report. However, the appeal judge found that the trial judge erred in admitting portions of the first statement, and that the second statement should have been admitted. The applicants sought further review by the Court of Appeal, but leave to appeal was denied.
Volodymyr Hrabovskyy v. University of Montréal(Que.)
While the applicant was a student at the respondent University of Montreal, a disciplinary committee found him guilty of various disciplinary offences and expelled him. The University’s Review Committee confirmed this decision. The Superior Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review of both decisions. The judge found that the decisions were reasonable, well‑motivated and applied the relevant disciplinary by‑law of the University to the facts. The Court of Appeal dismissed his motion for leave to appeal.
The applicant was in a motor vehicle accident in 2000. She commenced three actions and the litigation has spanned many years. The trial was set to begin in October, 2016. Just prior to the trial date, a Certified Capacity Assessor concluded that the applicant lacked capacity to act for herself in the litigation and the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) was appointed as the applicant’s litigation guardian pursuant to rule 7.04(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicant brought six proceedings aimed at overturning the appointment of the PGT, but all were unsuccessful. In April, 2019, the respondent, Mr. Braga, successfully brought a motion for an order that the applicant be prohibited from bringing further motions or appeals without leave of the court. The PGT retained outside counsel to act on its behalf as litigation guardian and settled the applicant’s three original actions for $1 million. The settlement was approved by the court.
The applicant sought leave of the Court of Appeal to allow her to appeal the order of the superior court approving the settlement. The motion was dismissed.