Temitope Dare v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

The applicant, Temitope Dare, was arrested and charged with offences under ss. 172.1(1)(a) (child luring under 18), 172.1(1)(b) (child luring under 16), and 286.1(2) (communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46. The charges arose out of Project Raphael designed by the York Regional Police — an undercover investigation that began in 2014 with the objective of reducing the demand for sexual services from juveniles in the region by targeting the “buyer side”. As part of the investigation, the police posted fake advertisements in the “escorts” section of the online classified advertising website Backpage.com. When individuals responded to the ads, an undercover officer posing as an escort would disclose in the ensuing text chat that “she” was underage. Individuals who continued the chat and arranged sexual services and a price were directed to a hotel room to complete the transaction and were arrested and charged on their arrival.

A jury found the applicant guilty of all three offences. The trial judge stayed the convictions under ss. 172.1(1)(b) (child luring under 16) and 286.1(2) (communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor), pursuant to Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. The trial judge then dismissed the applicant’s application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment. The applicant’s appeal from the convictions and the ruling on entrapment was dismissed.


Glen Hansman v. Barry Neufeld (B.C.)

The applicant is a teacher and the president of the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation. Mr. Neufeld is an elected public school board trustee in British Columbia. The Minister of Education published resources for teachers for the promotion of inclusive environments, policies and procedures in schools regarding sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI 123”). In 2017, Mr. Neufeld made negative comments and criticisms about the implementation of the SOGI 123 materials, which were posted on his Facebook page. His comments attracted significant criticism and media attention. Mr. Hansman was interviewed about Mr. Neufeld’s post. Mr. Neufeld alleged that Mr. Hansman defamed him in that interview, and in subsequent statements that were broadcast and published in the press and online. Mr. Neufeld filed a defamation action against Mr. Hansman, identifying 11 specific publications in which Mr. Hansman allegedly made defamatory remarks that Mr. Neufeld promoted hatred, was discriminatory against gay and transgender students, acted with malice, and presented a safety risk to students. Mr. Hansman applied to have Mr. Neufeld’s application dismissed pursuant to s. 4 of British Columbia’s Protection of Public Participation Act. The application judge granted the motion and dismissed the defamation action. This decision was overturned on appeal.


Chael Mills v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Criminal law — Evidence

Mr. Mills was charged with first degree murder following a fatal shooting. Crown counsel alleged that the shooting was gang-related and that Mr. Mills belonged to a street gang known as M.O.B. Klick. The defence argued M.O.B. Klick was a legitimate rap group with no gang affiliation. The Crown was granted leave to admit into evidence videos of rap music is which Mr. Mills appears, and handwritten rap lyrics allegedly authored by Mr. Mills. A jury convicted Mr. Mills of first degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.


Lavare Williams v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)

Criminal law — Evidence — Bias

Mr. Williams was charged with second degree murder following a fatal shooting. Crown counsel alleged that the shooting was gang‑related and that Mr. Williams belonged to a street gang known as M.O.B. Klick. The defence argued M.O.B. Klick was a legitimate rap group with no gang affiliation. The Crown was granted leave to call a police officer to testify as an expert on street gangs. During trial, conflict between Mr. Williams’ counsel and the trial judge prompted the trial judge to repeatedly intervene and criticize counsel, sometimes using harsh language. A jury convicted Mr. Williams of second degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.


Construction Unibec inc. v. Ville de Saguenay (Que.)

Judgments and orders

During the performance of a contract for the construction of a multipurpose centre, the respondent, Ville de Saguenay (“City”), wanted some additional work done. A site instruction was issued, accompanied by specific plans. The applicant, Construction Unibec inc., to which the construction contract had been awarded by resolution, sent the City a tender for $148,588.71 for the additional work. The tender was accepted by resolution. Unibec realized that backfilling work, which it had not included in the tendered price, was required to complete the additional work. It was agreed that the backfilling work would be done separately from the contract for the additional work with cost plus pricing based on the cost of materials and labour. On completion of the work, Unibec sent its final invoice for $297,241.10. The City refused to pay $148,652.39, the amount for the backfilling work.

The Superior Court allowed Unibec’s motion to institute proceedings and ordered the City to pay Unibec $148,652.39 for the backfilling work. The Court of Appeal dismissed Unibec’s motion to institute proceedings. The Supreme Court, pursuant to s. 43(1.1) of the Supreme Court Act, remanded the case forming the basis of the application for leave to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal for disposition in accordance with Montréal (Ville) v. Octane Stratégie inc., 2019 SCC 57. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment it had rendered in 2019.


Nancy Savoie v. Charles Savoie (N.B.)

Charter of Rights —Right to equality — Family law

The applicant, Ms. Savoie, filed a petition for divorce in which the main issues were support for her and the division of property and debts. The Court of Queen’s Bench made orders granting a divorce, requiring the respondent, Mr. Savoie, to pay Ms. Savoie $11,200 a month in support as of September 1, 2015 and for an indefinite period, and providing for the equal division of property and debts. Ms. Savoie appealed, and Mr. Savoie filed a cross‑appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the cross‑appeal, as it was of the view that the trial judge’s reasons were complete and contain no error.


Brandon Michael McManus v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Charter of Rights — Search and seizure — Criminal law

After failing a roadside test in a targeted stop, the applicant was arrested. Two breath samples were obtained following breath demands. The applicant argued that the police failed to observe him for 15 minutes before the samples of his breath were provided into the approved instrument, as was required by their training. The applicant also argued that because of this failure, the manner of taking the samples was unreasonable, and gave rise to a breach of s. 8 of the Charter. The applicant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit. The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the applicant’s appeal, and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal, and restored the conviction.


D.W. Conley, V. Park v. Cole Parliament, an incapable by his Litigation Guardian, Kimberley York, John Parliament and Kimberley York personally (Ont.)

Civil procedure — Jury trial — Evidence

The respondent Cole Parliament was diagnosed with severe hydrocephalus when he was around four months old. He is now 22 years old and has cognitive and physical disabilities. His parents, the respondents Kimberley York and John Parliament, sued the applicants Dr. Conley and Dr. Park for negligence, alleging that the applicants delayed diagnosing and treating Cole’s hydrocephalus and that this delay caused his brain damage. After a lengthy trial, the jury found that the standard of care had been met by both doctors, and the trial judge accordingly dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal and ordered a new trial.


Chinedu Gideon Ubah v. Canadian National Resources Limited, Steve Laut, Jim Yukes (Alta.)

Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Vexatious litigant

When the applicant commenced proceedings against the respondents, they objected on the ground that it was a vexatious proceeding. The court concluded, among other things, that the action appeared to be an abusive proceeding as a collateral attack and that the applicant should be subject to interim court access restrictions. In a subsequent decision, the applicant was ultimately found to be a vexatious litigant and further indefinite restrictions were imposed. The applicant succeeded in obtaining leave to appeal on two issues arising from that decision. The Court of Appeal of Alberta struck from the lower court order the prohibitions on the applicant commencing proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Tax Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, any Court outside of Alberta, or any Canadian administrative tribunal, without simultaneously providing a copy of three previous decisions of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Order imposing conditions on him as a vexatious litigant.


Liliana Kostic v. Bruce Alger, Grant Thornton Limited, Grant Thornton Alger Inc., Grant Thornton LLP, Caron & Partners, Daniel Gilborn and Richard Gilborn (Alta.)

Civil procedure — Contempt of court — Sanction

The applicant, Ms. Kostic, was sued by the Piikani Nation for allegedly mismanaging its investment funds. Ms. Kostic appealed a number of case management decisions related to the litigation, but her appeal was dismissed with costs in the sum of $92,000, including $14,500 in favour of the respondents Bruce Alger, Grant Thornton Limited, Grant Thornton Alger Inc. and Grant Thornton LLP (the “Grant Thornton respondents”). The Grant Thornton respondents began enforcement proceedings to realize their costs award. Ms. Kostic was found in contempt when she failed to provide the required financial report of debtor. It was determined at a further hearing that Ms. Kostic had not purged her contempt, and the sanction imposed was to dismiss Ms. Kostic’s application to add the Grant Thornton respondents as parties to the Piikani Nation litigation. Ms. Kostic was also unsuccessful in adding the respondents Caron & Partners, Daniel Gilborn and Richard Gilborn as parties to the Piikani Nation litigation. Her subsequent appeal was dismissed.


Steve Larrivée v. Her Majesty the Queen - and - Association des avocats et avocates en droit carcéral du Québec (Que.)

Criminal law — Sentencing — Breach of long‑term supervision order

The accused, the applicant Steve Larrivée, was sentenced to imprisonment for nine years followed by long‑term supervision after being found to be a long‑term offender. A three‑year long‑term supervision order (“LTSO”) prohibited him, among other things, from contacting his minor son. Following his release, Mr. Larrivée contacted his minor son 30 times through Messenger, thereby breaching a condition of his LTSO. In August 2019, the supervision period was suspended under s. 135.1 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and Mr. Larrivée was committed to a penitentiary for breaching the no‑contact condition. His release was revoked for 90 days, until a charge was laid in November 2019. He then remained in custody until March 2020, when he pleaded guilty.

On March 9, 2020, the Superior Court convicted Mr. Larrivée and sentenced him to imprisonment for eight months for breaching the LTSO condition. The trial judge did not grant credit for the two periods Mr. Larrivée had spent in custody before and after being charged. The Court of Appeal allowed Mr. Larrivée’s appeal in part. It granted credit for the second period in custody (from November 2019, when the charge was laid, until March 2020, when he pleaded guilty), but it held that the trial judge had not erred in not granting credit for the first period in custody before the charge was laid in November 2019.


Terry Wingert v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility

The applicant, Terry Wingert, was charged with second-degree murder. As part of the investigation into the murder, a “Mr. Big” operation was carried out in which the applicant was subjected to 45 different police scenarios. During the 32nd scenario, he confessed to an undercover police officer that he played a role in the murder of the victim. The confession was video and audio recorded. The applicant was then arrested and interviewed by a detective to whom he also confessed about his role in the murder. After the applicant’s guilty plea to the lesser and included offence of manslaughter was rejected by the Crown, the trial proceeded.

A voir dire was held in which the trial judge concluded that the confession and statement were admissible as evidence. The trial judge found that the applicant had the requisite intent for murder under s. 229(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46,and convicted him of second-degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s conviction appeal. It rejected the applicant’s arguments that (1) the trial judge erred in admitting the confession, as it was not reliable; and (2) the trial judge erred in finding the confession provided the necessary proof of intent, and the verdict based on that confession was therefore unreasonable.