The Supreme Court this week issued a number of leave-to-appeal rulings likely to be of interest to Canadian businesses and professionals. Four such leave-to-appeal requests were refused, and one was remanded.
The following applications were refused:
- Leave-to-appeal from the Alberta ruling in Somji v. Wilson, 2014 ABCA 35, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal had affirmed the striking of claims against both (i) a trial judge (who had granted default judgment against the appellants), and (ii) the respondents (who were alleged to have acted deceitfully in obtaining the default judgment).
- Leave-to-appeal from the Ontario ruling in Prince v. ACE Aviation Holdings Inc., 2014 ONCA 285, was likewise dismissed. The Court of Appeal had stayed a proposed class proceeding — alleging that Air Canada had unlawfully levied U.S. transportation taxes on its customers – pending the completion of the plaintiffs’ efforts to pursue remedies in the United States.
- Leave-to-appeal from a second class action decision — the Newfound ruling in Sundance Saloon Ltd. v. Newfoundland, 2014 NLCA 15 – was also dismissed. The Court of Appeal had affirmed the dismissal of a vires challenge to the imposition of a retroactive provincial tax on purchases of wine and spirits.
- Leave-to-appeal from the B.C. ruling in Sechelt Indian Band v. British Columbia, 2013 BCCA 262, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal had found that the provincial Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Actwas constitutionally inapplicable to landlord-tenant relationships on “Indian lands.”
- Lastly, leave-to-appeal from the Federal ruling in Couture v. Canada, 2014 FCA 35, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal had affirmed the decision of the tax authorities, seizing taxpayers’ property for a failure to collect or remit GST on sales of land following the failure of a property development scheme.
In addition to the foregoing dismissals of leave-to-appeal applications, the Court issued an order remanding an application back to the British Columbia Court of Appeal:
- The Court of Appeal in British Columbia v. Teal Cedar Products Ltd., 2013 BCCA 326, had ruled in favour of the province in an arbitrated dispute relating to the valuation of lost forestry harvesting rights. The SCC ruled that the BCCA should rehear the case in accordance with the SCC’s own recent ruling in Sattva v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53.