36572   J.C. v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal Law – Evidence – Appeals

The complainant, a 6-year old girl, was caught having her 4-year old cousin perform oral sex on her. She alleged that the applicant had performed oral sex on her once when she was 5 years old. The applicant was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code. The applicant applied to cross-examine the complainant in order to lead evidence of other sexual conduct by the complainant on other occasions. The trial judge dismissed the application. The complainant’s knowledge about oral sex and the source of that knowledge was a live issue at trial. The applicant applied to re-open the application to cross-examine the complainant in relation to allegations of other sexual activity. The trial judge refused to re-open the application. The trial judge concluded that there was no evidence of any other source of the complainant’s knowledge of oral sex other than the alleged misconduct of the accused. The trial judge convicted the applicant of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the conviction.

36601   Sistem Mühendislik Insaat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Kyrgyz Republic, Kyrgyzaltyn JSC

Public international law – Private international law – State immunity

The Applicant, a Turkish company, initiated arbitration proceedings against the Kyrgyz Republic (the “Republic”) under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, seeking compensation for the loss of its hotel investment. On September 9, 2009, the arbitral tribunal ordered the Republic to pay to the Applicant approximately US $9 million (the “award”).

On January 5, 2011, the Applicant obtained an order recognizing the award in Ontario. In the course of subsequent enforcement proceedings, it was determined that the Republic held no assets in Ontario. The Respondent Kyrgyzaltyn JSC (“KJSC”), a state-owned Kyrgyz enterprise which holds shares of Centerra Gold, a publicly-traded Canadian mining corporation (the “Centerra shares”), was added as a party against which enforcement was sought. Specifically, the Applicant sought a declaration confirming that the Republic beneficially owns the Centerra shares registered in KJSC’s name.

KJSC opposed the application for a declaratory order on grounds, inter alia, that such an order could not be made without the Republic being properly served in accordance with the SIA. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the Application for declaratory order. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the declaratory order.

36671   Her Majesty the Queen v. Rodney Tingley, Roger Tingley, Christopher Tingley

Constitutional law – Division of powers – Powers of judiciary

The accused were charged with drug and criminal organization offences. In pre-trial proceedings, defence counsel brought a motion challenging a wiretap authorization and a motion to have a Crown counsel removed as counsel at trial or precluded from acting as Crown counsel in the proceedings related to the wiretap authorisation. During the motion to remove Crown counsel, Crown counsel sought to limit cross-examination of a police officer and brought a motion for recusal of the trial judge. The trial judge denied the motion. Crown counsel decided to call no evidence in the trial. Defence counsel applied for directed verdicts of acquittals and the Crown appealed the acquittals. The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick dismissed the Motion for recusal of trial judge. The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick dismissed the appeal.

36600    Steffan Ileman v. Rogers Communications Inc., Rogers Communications Partnership, Fido Solutions Inc., Bell Canada Enterprise Inc., Bell Mobility Inc., Telus Corporation, Telus Communications Inc. and Telus Communications Company Partnership

Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification

The applicant, Mr. Ileman appealed the chamber judge’s decision dismissing an application to certify a class proceeding against various cellular telephone companies. His claim was brought primarily under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 2 (“BPCPA”). He sought a declaration that representations made by the respondents in relation to a “system access fee” contravened the BPCPA. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief and a restorative order unders. 171 and s. 172 of the BPCPA. The chambers judge dismissed the application for certification. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36530   Her Majesty the Queen v. Daniel Patry

Criminal law – Charge to jury – Vetrovec warning

A jury found the respondent, Daniel Patry, guilty of the second degree murder of Pierre Régimbald after two successive trials.

A first conviction had been set aside by the Court of Appeal on the basis that statements made to the police by Mr. Patry’s spouse should have been excluded, and a new trial was ordered. An application by the Crown for leave to appeal from that decision of the Court of Appeal was dismissed by this Court.

The Court of Appeal set aside the second conviction as well, because it was of the opinion that the trial judge’s instruction to the jury regarding a tainted witness had been insufficient. The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The Crown now seeks to appeal against that decision.

36541   Castor D'or Maritime LTÉE/Beaver Express Container Line Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada

Commercial law – Financial institution – Banks

The applicants, Castor D’or Maritime Ltée and Beaver Express Container Line Limited are suing the respondent, the Royal Bank of Canada, for not having disclosed an alleged conflict of interest due to their involvement with a competitor and for having made false representations with respect to the availability of a line of credit. The refusal of the line of credit by the Royal Bank of Canada led, at the time, to the end of the applicant’s operation. The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed the action, holding that the Bank’s liability was not established. The Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the appeal.

36629    Wright Medical Technology Canada Ltd., Wright Medical Technology, Inc. and Wright Medical Group, Inc. v. Ken Taylor

Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification

In June 2007, the respondent Mr. Kenneth Taylor had his left hip replaced on account of osteoarthritis. His attending surgeon used a Wright Profemur Hip Implant System conceived and produced by the applicants. Two years later the device failed. Mr. Taylor sued, alleging negligence in the design and manufacture of the implant system. He applied to have his action certified as a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, S.N.S. 2007, c. 28. The motion judge certified the action as a class proceeding. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.