APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

38482

Richard Girard v. Attorney General of Quebec, Land Registrar

(Que.)

Criminal law — Controlled drugs and substances — Forfeiture orders

The applicant, Mr. Girard, was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in a sum of money with a value exceeding $5,000, trafficking in cocaine, trafficking in a sum of money with a value exceeding $5,000 and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Since his residence was offence‑related property, its full forfeiture was ordered under s. 19.1(3)  of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 . On appeal, Mr. Girard argued, among other things, that only partial forfeiture should have been ordered. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

38549

Fort Mckay Métis Community Association v. Alberta Energy Regulator, Prosper Petroleum Ltd.

(Alta.)

Constitutional law — Aboriginal peoples — Treaty rights — Natural resources — Oil and gas

Prosper Petroleum Ltd. is the proponent of a bitumen recovery project that will operate within 10 km of two of the Fort McKay First Nation’s reserves. In 2015, Prosper applied to the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) for approval of the Project under the Oil Sands Conservation Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. O‑7 (“OSCA”), the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E‑12 (“EPEA”), and the Water Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W‑3. Fort McKay filed an objection to the Water Act application based on impacts to the groundwater and the surface water.

The AER allowed Fort McKay to participate fully in the hearing, and considered it to have rights to hunt and harvest for subsistence purposes and to exercise incidental activities on the lands and waters extending to lands included in the Prosper lease. The AER found that the Project was in the public interest, taking into account the burdens it placed on the Fort McKay Métis and the Fort McKay First Nation. While the Project might limit their choice of where and when to exercise their rights, those possible limitations did not tip the balance against the Project. The Project met the statutory goal of protecting the environment and promoting sustainable resource development while considering economic growth, and its surface water monitoring program exceeded the applicable regulatory requirements. It gave conditional approval to the applications under the OSCA, the EPEA, and the Water Act. As the approvals were conditional, Prosper was to seek input from the Fort McKay Métis and the Fort McKay First Nation before continuing with the development of its monitoring program, and the Project could not proceed without Cabinet approval. Fort McKay requested permission to appeal. When the Court of Appeal heard the application, Cabinet had not issued its decision on the Project. Permission was denied.

38560

Prashant Jadhav v. David Kielly

(N.L.)

Torts — Negligence — Motor vehicles — Causation

On October 27, 2013, at approximately 10:45 pm, David Kielly struck Prashant Jadhav with his motor vehicle. At the time, it was raining heavily, windy, and dark. Mr. Jadhav was dressed entirely in black, without any reflective material, and was walking on the right‑hand side of the road with traffic. In the area where the accident occurred, the road was straight with one paved lane in each direction. The road had gravel shoulders and no sidewalks. Mr. Jadhav sued Mr. Kielly for negligent driving. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador General Division found that Mr. Kielly was driving at an excessive speed given the conditions (50‑55 kilometers per hour in a zone with a posted limit of 50 kilometres per hour). The trial judge also found that Mr. Jadhav was struck on the shoulder of the road, not the pavement. As a result, the trial judge concluded that Mr. Kielly drove negligently. However, since Mr. Jadhav was wearing dark clothing making it difficult to see him, the trial judge found him contributorily negligent. The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador granted the cross-appeal on the basis that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors. It found that Mr. Jadhav was walking on the pavement, not the shoulder of the road when he was struck. The Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge failed to apply the ‘but for’ test in causation. It concluded that no matter the speed at which Mr. Kielly was driving, if Mr. Jadhav had not been on the road, there would have been no accident. Since Mr. Jadhav had failed to prove causation, negligence was not established.

38530

Michael W. Fleury v. Bassman Paulus, Basma Paulus, Rita Paulus and Ayad Paulus, both minors by their litigation guardian, Bassman Paulus

(Ont.)

Civil procedure — Pretrial conference

The applicant and respondents were involved in a motor vehicle accident in November 2008 when the vehicle operated by Mr. Fleury struck the Paulus family vehicle from behind at an intersection. The Paulus family brought an action for damages against Mr. Fleury. The parties and their counsel appeared at a pre‑trial conference and causation was in issue. During that conference, counsel for the Paulus family stated that he had “independent” witnesses to the collision who would make “good witnesses” and corroborated his clients’ story about the accident. Mr. Fleury’s counsel agreed to settle the claim. Immediately after the pretrial, Mr. Fleury’s counsel learned that the witnesses had difficulty communicating in English and that they also knew the Paulus family. Mr. Fleury’s counsel wrote to the plaintiffs’ counsel to repudiate the settlement. The Paulus family moved to enforce the settlement. The motion judge dismissed their motion. This decision was overturned on appeal.

38510

Daniel Barna v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Criminal law

The charges arise out of three separate financial transactions which occurred in September of 2009 in Toronto and Caledon. The Crown alleges that three fraudulent financial instruments totaling approximately $1.5 million were deposited into bank accounts at CIBC in Scarborough and the RBC in Bolton and the proceeds immediately withdrawn in cash or cash equivalents and dispersed. The Crown alleges that this was part of one scheme to defraud the banks in question and launder the money received. The Crown further alleges that Daniel Barna and other individuals were involved and participated in the scheme. Mr. Barna and the other co‑accused brought an application asserting that their s. 11 (b) Charter  rights had been breached due to the delay in the charges coming to trial. The application judge held that the transitional exceptional circumstance was dispositive and dismissed the s. 11 (b)Charter  application. Mr. Barna was convicted of money laundering and his conviction appeal was dismissed.

38567

Lyudmila Chavdarova a.k.a. Mila Chavdarova v. The Staffing Exchange Inc. a.k.a. TSE Canada Inc.

(Ont.)

Civil procedure — Appeals — Courts — Jurisdiction

Ms. Chavdarova was awarded $22,317 in damages in her action against the respondent. She appealed that award to the Court of Appeal. Despite being advised that she had filed her appeal in the wrong court, Ms. Chavdarova insisted that she had filed her appeal properly. The Court of Appeal quashed her appeal as it should have been brought before Divisional Court. Ms. Chavdarova’s motion to transfer her appeal to Divisional Court was dismissed. Ms. Chavdarova then brought a motion in the Superior Court of Justice for an extension of time to file her appeal in the Divisional Court. The motion was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had already dismissed her motion to transfer.

38567

Lyudmila Chavdarova a.k.a. Mila Chavdarova v. The Staffing Exchange Inc. a.k.a. TSE Canada Inc.

 

(Ont.)

Civil procedure — Appeals — Courts — Jurisdiction

Ms. Chavdarova was awarded $22,317 in damages in her action against the respondent. She appealed that award to the Court of Appeal. Despite being advised that she had filed her appeal in the wrong court, Ms. Chavdarova insisted that she had filed her appeal properly. The Court of Appeal quashed her appeal as it should have been brought before Divisional Court. Ms. Chavdarova’s motion to transfer her appeal to Divisional Court was dismissed. Ms. Chavdarova then brought a motion in the Superior Court of Justice for an extension of time to file her appeal in the Divisional Court. The motion was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had already dismissed her motion to transfer.

38563

Alex Martinez v. Her Majesty the Queen, Government of British Columbia, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Public Complaints Commission to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, British Columbia Public Service, The City of Calgary, The University of Calgary, The Government of Alberta, Teck Coal Limited, Court of Queen's Bench Calgary, Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Manitoba Court of Appeal, Governement of Manitoba, The Winnipeg Police Service, Bell Canada, Manitoba Telecom System Allstream, Vonage Canada, Telus Canada, Presidents Choice Financial, Presidents Choice Bank, BofA Canada Bank, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Winnipeg Child and Family Services, Manitoba Institute of Registered Social Workers, Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

(F.C.)

Judgments and orders — Summary judgments — Motion to strike pleadings

 In 2005, Mr. Martinez’s former girlfriend called 911 after she observed a man committing an indecent act across the street from her home. A police report was prepared in which Mr. Martinez was named as a witness. He denies that he witnessed the incident. Mr. Martinez commenced an action against various respondents claiming damages. The motion judge struck the applicant’s statement of claim in its entirety. The applicant’s subsequent motion for contempt and reconsideration was dismissed.

38543 Salwa Abdalla v. Her Majesty the Queen

(F.C.)

Taxation — Income Tax — Assessment

This matter came before the Tax Court of Canada by way of Notice of Motion by the Crown. The Crown sought to quash the appeal presented to the Tax Court of Canada by the applicant for the 2007 and 2009 taxation years, pursuant to s. 12  of the Tax Court of Canada Act  and s. 169(2.2) of theIncome Tax Act . The Crown sought to quash the appeal on the basis that the applicant was bound by a lead appeal known as Mariano v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 244, pursuant to an “Agreement to be Bound and Waiver of Objection and Appeal Rights” (“Agreement”) she had signed.

The applicant took a position to the contrary indicating that the motion should not be granted because no valid consideration had been exchanged; CRA created conditions whereby consent was not fully informed; and the Agreement was obtained by way of undue pressure. The Tax Court granted the motion and quashed the appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

38548

Chief Roger William on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of the Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government and the Tsilhqot'in Nation v. Attorney General of British Columbia, Chief Inspector of Mines and Taseko Mines Limited

(B.C.)

Constitutional law — Aboriginal peoples — Aboriginal law — Aboriginal right

The Xeni Gwet’in First Nations Government is a “band” within the meaning of the Indian Act, RSC 1985, c. I‑5 , and is a sub‑group of the Tsilhqot’in Nation. Roger William is former chief of the band. The members of the Tsilhqot’in Nation hold proven Aboriginal hunting, trapping, and trade rights throughout the area 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake, BC that includes Teztan Biny (Fish Lake), Y’anah Biny (Little Fish Lake) and Nabas (the surrounding area).

In addition to hunting and trapping, the Tsilhqot’in counduct fishing, gathering, spiritual and ceremonial activities in this area; the area serves as a resting place for a number of the Tsilhqot’in peoples’ ancestors. Taseko Mines Limited holds a mineral lease and mineral claims to this same area; their tenure rights remain in place until at least 2035. Taseko’s proposed plan for a mine (named the Prosperity Project) underwent provincial and federal environmental assessments.

The province issued an environmental assessment certificate. The federal government concluded that the Prosperity Project would have significant adverse environmental effects and rejected the Prosperity Project. Taseko revised its mining design and applied for an amendment to its provincial environmental certificate.

The province granted a five‑year extension on its environmental certificate which expires on January 14, 2020 if the project has not “substantially started” by that date. Taseko also re‑applied to the federal government for approval. In February 2014, the federal government rejected the redesigned project. Taseko then applied to the province for permits to carry out a new, expanded drilling exploration program. The province consulted with the Tsilhqot’in who opposed the new program on the basis that it would have lasting adverse effects on their rights.

In July 2017, the province’s Senior Inspector of Mines provided a 30 page written decision approving the expanded drilling program. The decision included 37 mitigation conditions in order for Taseko Mines to conduct their drilling. The applicants applied for judicial review of this decision. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the petition for judicial review on the basis that the Senior Inspector’s decision was reasonable. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the subsequent appeal.

38470

Attorney General of Quebec v. Karl Lefrançois

— and between —

Her Majesty the Queen v. Karl Lefrançois

(Que.)

Charter of Rights — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — Sentencing

The respondent, Mr. Lefrançois, pleaded guilty to eight counts laid against him, including possessing a prohibited firearm, possessing and importing prohibited devices, and making a prohibited firearm. Despite the mandatory minimum sentences of three years provided for in ss. 99(2) (a) and 103(2) (a) of the Criminal Code, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal.

38542

Nathan Harvey Allman Wolfleg v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Alta.)

Criminal law — Sentencing — Considerations

Mr. Wolfleg was convicted of two counts of assault causing bodily harm, one count of uttering a threat, and one count of sexual assault. Mr. Wolfleg has a criminal record involving numerous prior violent incidents involving his intimate partners. The sentencing judge found that Mr. Wolfleg is a prototypical psychopath with no realistic prospect of undergoing meaningful change through treatment. Mr. Wolfleg was declared a dangerous offender and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. The Court of Appeal granted Mr. Wolfleg’s application to admit the Gladue report, granted leave to appeal, and dismissed the sentence appeal.

38565

Chando Kayne Jackson v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Alta.)

Criminal law — Appeals — Defenses — Mental disorder

The applicant broke into a residence in March 2012 and assaulted the occupant. The applicant was charged with breaking and entering, assault causing bodily harm, and breach of recognizance. Upon acceptance of a joint submission by defence counsel and Crown counsel, the trial judge found the applicant not criminally responsible (“NCR”) by reason of mental disorder in 2012.

In 2016, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with respect to his NCR verdict, along with an application for an extension of time in which to file his appeal. He alleged that he was not really suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the incident, that he was only faking mental illness during his hospital examination, and that his psychosis was caused by substance use. The applicant intended instead to plead guilty to the offences, and seek an appropriate sentence. A single judge of the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed his application for an extension of time, and granted the Crown’s motion to strike his proposed appeal.

38495

Shelly Ann Petz v. Patrick Duguay

 

(Alta.)

Torts — Negligence — Personal injury — Causation — Damages

Ms. Petz and Mr. Duguay were involved in a motor vehicle accident in September 2004. Ms. Petz, a passenger in the vehicle, was injured in the collision. She brought an action for damages against Mr. Duguay, who admitted liability. At trial, the primary issues concerned causation and what damages flowed from the accident. Ms. Petz maintained that her chronic pain persisted to the date of trial.