(40868)

I.M. v. His Majesty the King (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) Criminal law — Sentencing, Young persons — Youth sentenced as an adult

(40873)

S.B. v. His Majesty the King(Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)Criminal law — Sentencing, Young persons — Youth sentenced as an adult

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed

(40796)

Berish Schwimmer, et al. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, et al. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)Evidence — Civil procedure — Replacement of judge

(40814)

Demitry Papasotiriou v. His Majesty the King (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) Criminal law — Reasonable verdict, Appeals

(40744)

Ville de Montréal v. Arthur Blumer & Associates inc. in continuance of suit for Litwin Boyadjian Inc. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)Bankruptcy and insolvency — Trustees

Applications for leave to appeal granted – Summaries

(40868)

I.M. v. His Majesty the King (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) Criminal law — Sentencing, Young persons — Youth sentenced as an adult

Following a fatal stabbing that occurred when a group of men attempted to rob the victim’s home, I.M. was charged with first degree murder. He was 17 years old at the time of the offence and was tried in Youth Justice Court. A jury convicted I.M. of first degree murder. The Youth Justice Court granted an application by the Crown to sentence I.M. as an adult and sentenced him to life imprisonment with 10 years parole ineligibility and lifelong parole. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from the conviction and the sentence.

(40873)

S.B. v. His Majesty the King(Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave)Criminal law — Sentencing, Young persons — Youth sentenced as an adult

A 16 year old victim was fatally shot in the head at close range. S.B. was 16 years old at the time of the offence. The Youth Court convicted S.B. of first degree murder, granted an application by Crown counsel to sentence him as an adult, and imposed a life sentence with ten years’ parole ineligibility. The Court of Appeal dismissed S.B.’s sentence appeal.

 

 

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed – Summaries

 

 

 

(40796)

Berish Schwimmer, et al. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, et al. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)Evidence — Civil procedure — Replacement of judge

 

The applicant, Berish Schwimmer, challenged three notices of assessment issued by the respondent Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”). The case was heard by a Court of Québec judge and was taken under advisement. Because the judge was unable to act, the Chief Judge of the Court of Québec issued an order pursuant to art. 326 of the Civil Code of Procedure (“C.C.P.”) that the trial be continued and completed by Judge Forlini, who proceeded to hold a case management conference in the presence of the parties’ lawyers, including the respondent Julie Gaudreault-Martel for Mr. Schwimmer. The minutes of the management conference stated the following, among other things: [TRANSLATION] “[t]he parties consent to the judge relying solely, as regards evidence, on the transcript of the hearing”. Judge Forlini dismissed Mr. Schwimmer’s originating application for an appeal of the assessments (hereinafter “Forlini judgment”). After receiving the Forlini judgment, Mr. Schwimmer sought the disavowal of Ms. Gaudreault-Martel on the ground that he was never informed that she had consented to the judge relying solely, as regards evidence, on the recording of the trial and the transcript of the stenographic notes. The ARQ applied for the dismissal of the originating application for disavowal on grounds of abuse pursuant to art. 51 C.C.P. Judge Riverin declared the originating application for disavowal to be clearly unfounded and abusive, and he dismissed it (hereinafter “Riverin judgment”). The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Schwimmer’s application for leave to appeal the Riverin judgment and referred the ARQ’s application for the dismissal of the appeal from the Forlini judgment to the panel that would be seized of the appeal from the Riverin judgment. The Quebec Court of Appeal found that Judge Forlini proceeded on the basis of valid consent and it dismissed the two appeals.

 

(40814)

Demitry Papasotiriou v. His Majesty the King (Ont.) (Criminal) (By Leave) Criminal law — Reasonable verdict, Appeals

 

On March 2, 2011, Mr. Lanteigne was murdered. His husband, Mr. Papasotiriou, and a co-accused were charged with first degree murder. Mr. Papasotiriou was living in Greece at the time of the murder and the Crown’s case against him relied on circumstantial evidence. A jury convicted Mr. Papasotiriou of first degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the conviction.

 

(40744)

Ville de Montréal v. Arthur Blumer & Associates inc. in continuance of suit for Litwin Boyadjian Inc. (Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)Bankruptcy and insolvency — Trustees

 

The applicant, Ville de Montréal (“City”), appealed the decision made by the respondent, Arthur Blumer & Associates Inc. in continuation of suit for Litwin Boyadjian Inc., acting as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Public Bike System Company (“Company”), to postpone the City’s proof of claim as an unsecured creditor in the Company’s bankruptcy. In 2011, the City had granted the Company a loan that was secured by a hypothec. In 2014, the Company filed a notice of intention under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (BIA), and voluntarily surrendered its hypothecated property to the City. The trustee then went to court to obtain a declaration that the two contracts (loan and hypothec) were null because they were contrary to the Municipal Aid Prohibition Act, CQLR, c. I-15. In April 2017, the Superior Court ruled in the trustee’s favour and declared that the two contracts were absolutely null and were therefore deemed never to have existed. That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, which ordered the restitution of prestations and declared that [TRANSLATION] “the City is a creditor for the balance owed on the date of taking in payment, $31,746,575, and may submit a claim to the trustee in bankruptcy” (see Syndic du Système de bicyclette public, société de vélo en libre service, 2017 QCCS 1442, affirmed on appeal in Ville de Montréal v. Litwin Boyadjian inc. (syndic de Société de vélo en libre service), 2019 QCCA 794, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed on February 2, 2020, in file No. 38759). In February 2020, the City filed a proof of claim as an unsecured creditor on the basis of the Court of Appeal’s 2019 decision, which created a legal obligation of restitution. The trustee concluded that the proof of claim should be postponed because the two contracts underlying the legal obligation were improper transactions between related persons within the meaning of s. 137(1) of the BIA and, in the alternative, because they constituted equity contributions under s. 140.1 of the BIA. The Superior Court granted in part the City’s motion and set aside in part the trustee’s notice of postponement. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

 

 

Editors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew Estabrooks

Partner

 

 

 

D. Lynne Watt

Partner

 

 

 

Jeff Beedell

Partner

 

 

 

 

 

Graham S. Ragan

Partner

 

 

 

Brian A. Crane, KC

Partner