36766 Dellen Millard v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Self-incrimination – Testimony
The Applicant seeks leave to appeal the orders of MacDonnell J. dated August 17, 2015 and Belobaba J. dated December 2, 2015. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a Judge’s order to compel the Applicant’s appearance in court.
36623 Amjad Khan v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal Law – Trial
An Indictment charged one count, that: “Naim Mohammed SAGHIR and / et Amjad KHAN … did commit the first degree murder of Tasha Rossette …”. Ms. Rossette was stabbed to death in her garage after Mr. Khan drove her home from a bingo hall. The Crown argued at trial that Mr. Saghir stabbed her to death and Mr. Khan aided in the murder by driving her home where Mr. Saghir was waiting. No direct or forensic evidence links Mr. Khan or Mr. Saghir to the murder. The trial judge acquitted Mr. Saghir, finding that the Crown failed to prove that he was the person who stabbed Ms. Rossette. However, the trial judge convicted Mr. Khan of first degree murder for having aided the murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Khan’s appeal from the conviction.
36757 Jesse Peter Toews v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Sentencing – Dangerous offender designation
After a trial by judge alone, the applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault for his attack on a 77-year-old woman. The victim, unknown to him, was attacked from behind on her way to the grocery store and was severely beaten, sexually assaulted and knocked unconscious. The sentencing judge designated the applicant as a dangerous offender under s. 753(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which is applicable when “the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons on the basis of evidence establishing … any behaviour by the offender, associated with the offence for which he or she has been convicted, that is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint”. The applicant’s appeal of that designation was dismissed by a unanimous Court of Appeal.
36652 Angela Bustamante v. The Guarantee Company of North America
Courts — Bias — Standard of Review
Ms. Bustamante was involved in a car accident on June 3, 2004. She filed an Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) and a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) with the Guarantee Company of North America. She later elected income replacement benefits rather than non-earner benefits (OCF-10). On September 1, 2004, the insurer advised her, via an Explanation of Benefits (OCF-9), that it would pay her weekly income replacement benefits, and noted that she did not qualify for non-earner benefits because she qualified for the income replacement benefit. The Explanation of Benefits informed her that she could appeal within two years of the insurer’s refusal to pay a benefit, or from a reduction of a benefit, to arbitrate or to commence a lawsuit. On July 26, 2006, the insurer stopped paying benefits because she no longer met the disability test for entitlement. Ms. Bustamante returned to work in September 2006. Three years later, in September 2009, Ms. Bustamante’s counsel advised the insurer that Ms. Bustamante intended to pursue a claim for non-earner benefits. She argued that there had not been a denial of non-earner benefits, so the limitation period had not started to run. Ms. Bustamante failed to respond to the insurer’s requests for an updated disability certificate and documentation. In June 2011, however, she sought mediation, which was unsuccessful. On November 28, 2012, Ms. Bustamante initiated a claim for damages for breach of contract in refusing accident benefits and for mental distress. The insurer moved under Rule 20 for summary judgment.
The motions judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the action, finding that Ms. Bustamante’s action was filed outside the limitation period. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
36751 Gregory L. Candido v. Her Majesty the Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal Law – Appeal
Cst. Durdle and his partner stopped a car driven by Mr. Candido after receiving a dispatch that an intoxicated male was leaving a certain location. Cst. Durdle testified that he smelled alcohol on Mr. Candido’s breath so he asked him to blow into an ASD. Candido attempted to provide a breath sample six times. Cst. Durdle arrested him for failing to provide a breath sample. He was convicted. His summary conviction appeal and his appeal were dismissed.
36697 Claude Hebron v. University of Saskatchewan, Bruce Grahn, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission
Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Jurisdiction
Mr. Hebron was a student in the clinical rotation of the University’s Western College of Veterinary Medicine (“the College”). He struggled with his clinical studies, reportedly due to a learning disability. Even with the additional accommodation from the College, he continued to struggle. When it became clear that he would not be able to successfully complete his clinical training, the College required him to discontinue. The College, however, offered that Mr. Hebron could repeat his fourth year, provided that he first upgraded his foundational knowledge at an accredited institution.
Mr. Hebron unsuccessfully contested his grades through a college-level student appeals system. He then appealed to the University Council Appeal Board (“Council”), where students may contest their grades by alleging the grades have been affected by matters “other than substantive academic judgment”, such as discrimination or a failure to accommodate a disability. A three-member Council panel unanimously dismissed his appeal. Mr. Hebron did not seek judicial review of that decision. Instead, he formalized a complaint to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”).
The University and Dr. Grahn applied to the Commission to have the complaint dismissed as being duplicative of the Council’s process, pursuant to s. 27.1(2)(d) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, S.S. 1979, c S-24.1. The
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission dismissed the application. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan granted the application for judicial review and the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dismissed the appeal.
36584 Delbert John (Jack) Marshall, Bernie Yue Foo Wong v. United Furniture Warehouse (2004) Corporation, United Furniture Warehouse LP, United GP Ltd., 551148 B.C. Ltd., John Volken and David Gerstner
Civil procedure – Class actions – Certification
The applicants separately purchased furniture from 551148 B.C. Ltd., then known as the United Furniture Warehouse Limited (“UFW”). They alleged that the main reason for their purchase of furniture was the cash back voucher program offered to customers by UFW. Under the program, UFW gave its customers a voucher if they purchased specific products, UFW in turn paid a portion of the revenue from each transaction to a company called The Consumers Trust. The vouchers were eligible to be redeemed by customers from The Consumer Trust for an amount up to their face value after three years, provided the consumer complied with all of the conditions on the voucher. A successor to 551148, “new UFW” stopped offering the program in 2004 and shortly thereafter became aware that The Consumers Trust filed for bankruptcy. New UFW sent a notice to customers informing them that UFW was a separate legal entity from The Consumers Trust and that their contract was with The Consumers Trust, rather than with UFW. New UFW instituted an in-store customer credit program for customers who had been issued vouchers as a “customer satisfaction measure”.
The applicants claimed: (1) breach of warranty or collateral contract; (2) deceptive acts or practices or unconscionable acts or practices under theBusiness Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.B.C. 2004; (3) negligent misrepresentation; and (4) negligence. They applied for certification under theClass Proceedings Act to proceed as a class action.
The respondents challenged certification on several grounds, including: (1) the pleadings disclosing no reasonable cause of action; (2) the absence of a sufficient evidentiary basis for certification; (3) the absence of common issues to be tried; and (4) on the basis that the class proceeding is not the preferable procedure.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the application for certification and the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.
36681 Ross Gulkison v. Vancouver Police Board
Torts – Statutory interpretation – Negligence
The Applicant alleges he was abused and sexually assaulted between 1957 and 1969 by his cousin, then a member of the Vancouver Police Department, and claims against the Respondent Vancouver Police Board for damages. The claim is based on the premise that the Vancouver Police Board is responsible for the liabilities of the Board of Police Commissioners, the administrator of the Vancouver Police Department before the enactment of the Police Act, S.B.C. 1974, c. 64. The provisions in the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, establishing the Board of Police Commissioners were repealed in 1974, on the same day that the Police Act was enacted, revising the model of municipal policing in British Columbia. Under the Police Act, the Vancouver Police Board was created, and the municipal council was made vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of police constables. The Respondent Board applied for summary judgment to dismiss the action, taking the position that any liability which might have accrued to the Board of Police Commissioners came to an end in June 1974. It submitted that since the latter was abolished, the Respondent VPB would not have inherited any liabilities that might have accrued to the Commissioners prior to 1974 when the Respondent Board was established under the Police Actof 1974. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the Vancouver Police Board’s application. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed the appeal.
36650 Ranjit Singh Gill v. Attorney General of Canada in Right of Minister of Transport
Torts — Negligence — Private law duty of care
The issue in this case is whether the respondent, Attorney General of Canada in right of Minister of Transport (“Transport Canada”) owed a duty of care to International Express Aircharter Ltd. (“IEA”) when it suspended IEA’s Air Operator Certificate (“AOC”) in the immediate aftermath of an accident in which one of IEA’s planes crashed, causing three people to die, as per the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-2.
It is not in dispute that Transport Canada relied, in error, on an inapplicable regulatory power in support of its suspension of the AOC. The consequence of the suspension of IEA’s AOC was the bankruptcy of its business, resulting in economic loss. The applicant, Mr. Gill was the shareholder of IEA and he took an assignment of IEA’s cause of action from the Trustee in Bankruptcy.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Mr. Gill’s action. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36590 Her Majesty the Queen v. Michelle Liard
Criminal law — Evidence — Prior consistent statements
The accused, respondent Michelle Liard, was acquitted by jury on a charge of first degree murder of her friend. Her co-accused and then boyfriend, Rafal Lasota, was convicted of first degree murder and received a mandatory life sentence with no eligibility for parole for 25 years.
The Crown alleged that the accused and Lasota planned the murder together, that the accused lured the victim to Lasota’s home, and that Lasota carried out the murder in his bedroom. The victim suffered numerous stab wounds and blunt force injuries. The accused was in Lasota’s home when the murder occurred, but not in the bedroom. After the murder, she helped Lasota with a clean-up and later wrote a note to her grandmother, stating that Lasota had murdered the victim, and that she had nothing to do with it. Approximately 13 hours after the murder, the accused gave a lengthy police interview during which she was charged with first degree murder. She was stunned and protested her innocence until the interview ended.
The trial judge allowed the accused, as part of her defence, to lead her videotaped statement to the police, relying on the exception to the general rule against the admission of prior consistent statements in R. v. Edgar, 2010 ONCA 529, leave to appeal refused,  S.C.C.A. No. 466. The accused was acquitted by a jury of first degree murder and the appeal from acquittal was dismissed.
36632 Linda Susan Antrobus v. Maureen Ellen Antrobus, representative ad litem of the Estate of Joan Iris Antrobus and Maureen Ellen Antrobus, also known as Maureen Ellen Campbell, Committee of the Estate of William Henry Antrobus
Torts — Negligence — Standard of care
The applicant brought an action against her parents in 2007, alleging that they had failed to protect her from her abusive grandfather, for events happening between 1959 and 1960. The applicant succeeded at trial and was awarded damages against her parents. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.
36698 Lovejeet Bains v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law — Jurors — Controlled drugs and substances
Police responded to a confidential tip of a drug transaction involving a specific individual and motor vehicle. The applicant, Mr. Lovejeet Bains, drove a blue-grey Honda Accord owned by Mr. Harneet Pannu (the applicant in related file number 36687). In the same vicinity, Mr. Pannu drove a blue-grey Honda Accord owned by Mr. Bains. Police stopped Mr. Bains and searched the vehicle, seizing a bag from under the front passenger seat. The bag contained a digital scale and one kilogram of heroin inside a separate vacuum-sealed bag. Mr. Bains was arrested. Mr. Pannu drove by the scene slowly on two occasions. He called Mr. Bains repeatedly during the traffic stop. An officer finally answered and invited Mr. Pannu to join them. He was arrested upon his arrival. Messrs. Bains and Pannu were jointly charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. They were convicted by a judge sitting with a jury after the trial judge refused a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. They were each sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. It was later discovered that before the jury began its deliberations, a single juror brought into the jury room a document, which contained a brief criticism of an unrelated American case and a few principles of law extracted from the Canadian Judicial Council’s model jury instructions. When this document was discovered, after the verdict, the trial judge produced it to counsel and convened a full inquiry. Later still, Messrs. Bains and Pannu appealed their convictions, citing errors in the charge and refusal to grant a directed verdict. They also cited the juror misconduct discovered post-verdict and argued the verdict was therefore unreasonable. Messrs. Bains and Pannu appealed their sentences on the basis they were unfit. The Court of Appeal reviewed the record as well as the jury inquiry, concluded that no miscarriage of justice occurred and therefore, dismissed the appeals.
36687 Harneet Pannu v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law — Jurors — Controlled drugs and substances
Police responded to a confidential tip of a drug transaction involving a specific individual and motor vehicle. The applicant in related file number 36698, Mr. Lovejeet Bains, drove a blue-grey Honda Accord owned by the applicant in this file, Mr. Harneet Pannu. In the same vicinity, Mr. Pannu drove a blue-grey Honda Accord owned by Mr. Bains. Police stopped Mr. Bains and searched the vehicle, seizing a bag from under the front passenger seat. The bag contained a digital scale and one kilogram of heroin inside a separate vacuum-sealed bag. Mr. Bains was arrested. Mr. Pannu drove by the scene slowly on two occasions. He called Mr. Bains repeatedly during the traffic stop. An officer finally answered and invited Mr. Pannu to join them. He was arrested upon his arrival. Messrs. Bains and Pannu were jointly charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking. They were convicted by a judge sitting with a jury after the trial judge refused a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. They were each sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. It was later discovered that before the jury began its deliberations, a single juror brought into the jury room a document, which contained a brief criticism of an unrelated American case and a few principles of law extracted from the Canadian Judicial Council’s model jury instructions. When this document was discovered, after the verdict, the trial judge produced it to counsel and convened a full inquiry. Later still, Messrs. Bains and Pannu appealed their convictions, citing errors in the charge and refusal to grant a directed verdict. They also cited the juror misconduct discovered post-verdict and argued the verdict was therefore unreasonable. Messrs. Bains and Pannu appealed their sentences on the basis they were unfit. The Court of Appeal reviewed the record as well as the jury inquiry, concluded that no miscarriage of justice occurred and therefore, dismissed the appeals.
36637 Nathalie Marcotte, Claude Delorme v. Société TVA inc., Nathalie Lemieux, Jean-Marie Nicole
Civil liability – Defamation – Investigative journalism
A horse sold by the applicants to the respondent Jean‑Marie Nicole was found to have a health problem when the warranty set out in the contract had expired. The respondent Jean‑Marie Nicole contacted the respondent Société TVA inc. to submit his case for an investigative journalism program called J.E. The report aired in December 2004 and had a number of consequences for the applicants, who brought a motion for damages for damage to reputation and pecuniary loss. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the motion for damages. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
36656 Brad Gould Trucking & Excavating Ltd, Bird Construction Company v. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of the Province of New Brunswick
Contracts – Commercial contracts – Tender
The Province planned to construct a new courthouse in Saint John and commissioned a geotechnical report (“the Report”) to assist with the design of the foundations for the facility. In 2009, the Province called for tenders for the foundations and steel. The Report was not listed as a tender document, but was referred to in the instructions to bidders, and was incorporated by reference into the contract documents. Bird Construction Company (“Bird”) and its subcontractor Brad Gould Trucking & Excavating Ltd. (“Gould”) relied on the Report to prepare their respective tenders. Bird won the bid and entered into a fixed-sum standard construction contract with the Province pursuant to the Crown Construction Contracts Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. C-36 (replaced by S.N.B. 2014, c. 105) and N.B. Reg. 82-109. Bird and Gould subsequently entered into a fixed-sum subcontract for the excavation, supply, and installation of all earthworks.
Soon after beginning the excavation of bedrock, Gould realized that it could not remove the bedrock by digging with excavators and had to employ rock-breakers, a more expensive means of excavation, due to the harder than anticipated rock conditions. Bird and Gould presented an adjusted soils claim to the Province pursuant to the change in soil conditions clause of the contract. The Province denied the claim. Gould sued Bird, claiming the cost of additional work allegedly performed as a result of the change in soil conditions. Bird brought a third-party claim against the Province for the amount of Gould’s claim and for additional charges that Bird alleged it would be entitled to receive for the additional work. The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick allowed the actions in part. The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick allowed the appeal.
36646 Paro Enterprises Limited v. Annette Murphy
Property – Real property – Registration of lis pendens (Certificate of pending litigation)
On January 15, 2013, Annette Murphy separated from her husband, Rodney Murphy. On July 25, 2013, she registered a lis pendens in respect of a property which she alleged was a matrimonial home under the Family Law Act, RSNL 1990, c. F-2. On August 26, 2013, she filed an originating application for division of the matrimonial property, naming Rodney Murphy and Shoal Investments Limited (the sole shareholder of Paro Enterprises Limited), but not Paro, in her originating application. Title to the property against which the lis pendens was registered was held by Paro. On February 10, 2014, Paro applied for an order vacating the lis pendens to facilitate sale of the property, claiming Ms. Murphy had not complied with relevant legal requirements, having registered the lis pendens about a month before filing her originating application and by naming Shoal, but not Paro, in her originating application.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland & Labrador, Trial Division, dismissed the application to vacate the lis pendens. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland & Labrador, Court of Appeal, dismissed the appeal (White J.A. dissenting).
36566 Site Touristique Chute à L'ours de Normandin Inc. v. Succession of Duc Duy Nguyen, Nguyen Thi Thu Thao, Pham Thi My Dieu, in her capacity as plaintiff in continuance of suit for Nguyen Van Sau, Lai Thi Ai Phuong, both in her personal capacity and in her capacity as legal heir of Duc Duy Nguyen
Civil liability – Fault – Obligation of safety
On August 4, 2007, while staying at an outdoor recreation centre run by the applicant, Site touristique Chute à l’Ours de Normandin inc., Duc Duy Nguyen, aged 27, drowned in the Ashuapmushuan River.
Duc Duy Nguyen’s father, Nguyen Van Sau, his mother, Lai Thi Ai Phuong, and his fiancée, Nguyen Thi Thu Thao, are claiming damages from the applicant, arguing that it must be held liable for faults of omission that constituted a breach of its obligation of safety and its duty to provide information. More specifically, they submit that the applicant failed to inform the group of visitors of which Duc Duy Nguyen was a member of the risks involved in venturing onto the rocks by the river, to tell them they could not go there and to provide rescue equipment next to the falls. The Quebec Superior Court granted the applicant’s motion for liability. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and incidental appeal.
36620 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 2323, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Lory-Ann Trépanier-Bouchard
Civil procedure – Abuse of process
The respondent, Lory-Ann Trepanier-Bouchard filed a motion to institute a class action in civil responsibility against the applicants, both trade unions, with respect to the unlawful strike conducted by their members working as baggage handlers at Pierre-Trudeau Airport in Montreal on March 2012. The respondent and each member of the class action are claiming moral damages for an eight hour delay created by the applicants in order to secure an alternative flight for the one cancelled by the strike. The applicants filed a motion for dismissal pursuant to s. 54.1 of the Code of civil procedure against the institution of a class action before the Superior Court. The applicants argued, in vain, that since the examination for discovery of the respondent showed a complete lack of factual element in support of the allegation of fault, the claim was therefore abusive for being hypothetical and speculative. The Superior Court dismissed the motion as being ill-founded or at least premature, holding that, although the examination for discovery of the respondent is not enough to establish the responsibility of the applicants, it remains necessary to give the respondent the opportunity to provide evidence of the allegations through judicial process. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
36565 Peavine Metis Settlement, East Prairie Settlement and Elizabeth Metis Settlement v. Linda Isbister, Morris Aulotte, Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal, Fishing Lake Metis Settlement, Metis Settlements General Council, Metis Settlements Land Registry
Administrative Law – Boards and tribunals – Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal
In 2008, the Fishing Lake Metis Settlement passed a by-law approving the respondent Ms. Isbister’s membership in the Settlement. In 2013, another member of the Settlement brought an appeal to the Tribunal, challenging the legality of the by-law and the approval of Ms. Isbister’s membership. The Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal waived the statutory 45-day appeal period under theMetis Settlements Act in which to challenge membership by-laws, concluding that the circumstances of this case weighed in favour of an extension or waiver. The Tribunal found that Ms. Isbister had been ineligible to apply as a member given that she was voluntarily registered as a status Indian at the time, and the by-law approving her membership was therefore illegal. The Tribunal repealed the by-law and removed Ms. Ibister’s name from the Settlement membership list. The Court of Appeal of Alberta allowed Ms. Isbister’s appeal, vacated the Tribunal’s order, restored the by-law, and restored Ms. Isbister’s name to the Settlement membership list. The court found that the Tribunal did not have the statutory authority to waive or extend the 45-day appeal period; given that the appeal was filed outside this period, the challenge to the by-law should not have been considered by the Tribunal. The Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal decided to repeal the membership by-law and to remove Ms. Isbister’s name from Settlement membership list. The Court of Appeal of Alberta allowed the appeal.
36475 Dunkin’ Brands Canada Ltd. (formerly Allied Domecq Retailing International (Canada) Ltd.) v. Bertico Inc. et al
Contracts – Franchise agreements – Non-performance
Twenty-one respondent franchisees who had operated 32 restaurants in the Dunkin’ Donuts chain in the 1990’s and 2000’s brought proceedings for breach of contract against their franchisor. They alleged that the franchisor repeatedly breached its contractual obligation to protect and promote the Dunkin’ Donuts brand in Quebec during a period of serious competition, causing them lost profits and investments and leading to the collapse of the brand in Quebec. They sought the formal termination of their leases and franchise agreements as well as damages. The franchisor denied any breach, claiming that the franchisees had failed to operate within standards, and had executed releases barring any claims against it. It also brought cross-demands for unpaid royalties and other sums and for damages for defamation and abuse of process.
The Superior Court of Quebec maintained the franchisees’ actions and dismissed the franchisor’s defences and cross-claims. The Court annulled the franchisees’ releases, resiled their leases and franchise agreements and ordered the franchisor to pay the franchisees global damages of $16,407,143. The Court of Appeal of Quebec confirmed the finding of liability but allowed the franchisor’s appeal in part, maintaining the franchisor’s defences and cross-claims to the extent of granting the amounts of $899,528 and $249,316 and revising the order to pay global damages to the franchisees to $10,908,513,25.
36682 Réal Scott Rail v. Her Majesty the Queen
Charter of rights – Criminal law – Remedy
The applicant Réal Scott Rail was convicted of three counts of fraud over $5,000, one count of making a false document and one count of using a forged document. From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Rail established various businesses in which the complainant invested large sums of money. Rather than using the money as agreed, Mr. Rail allegedly used it for his personal benefit. In December 2005, Mr. Rail’s spouse discovered that he was having an affair with the complainant and seeing another woman. She kicked him out. She subsequently asked him several times to pick up his personal belongings, which he did not do. When Mr. Rail finally asked her to pick up his boxes of documents, she told him that she had already thrown out the boxes on the recommendation of the complainant. Arguing that the destruction of the documents had caused irreparable prejudice to his right to make full answer and defence and to the integrity of the judicial system, Mr. Rail filed a motion for a stay of proceedings, which was dismissed. On appeal, he challenged only the judge’s decision to dismiss the motion for a stay of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.
36640 Robert Clifford Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Sentencing considerations – Life imprisonment
Robert Smith was charged on a 25-count indictment, which included one count of criminal negligence causing death arising from a fatal motor-vehicle collision. He was tried by a judge alone. After the commencement of his trial, Mr. Smith pled guilty to all counts except for criminal negligence causing death (one count) and criminal negligence causing bodily harm (five counts).
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found Mr. Smith guilty on all counts of criminal negligence and sentenced him to life imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death. Various other sentences were imposed for the remaining offences. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the life imprisonment sentence.
36609 Andrew McCann, Jamie Masse and Patrick Thompson v. Her Majesty the Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2b – Criminal law
The “Save our Prison Farm Campaign” was created in response to a federal government decision to cancel the rehabilitative prison farm program. The group held several peaceful events and demonstrations as part of a larger campaign to gain support for the reversal of the government decision. On the day in question, members of the group attempted to block cattle trucks from removing a herd of cattle from the institution. The protest occurred at the entrance to the Institution and the cattle were the property of Correctional Service of Canada. The applicants were charged with wilfully attempting to interfere with the lawful use and enjoyment of property, specifically, Frontenac Institution, thereby committing mischief to property. The Ontario Court of Justice convicted the Applicants’ of attempt to commit mischief. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Appeal and the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
36673 Annie Chélin v. Louis Gill, Syndicat des professeurs et professeures de l’Université du Québec à Montréal
Civil liability – Defamation – Malice
Over the years, the applicant Annie Chélin instituted several administrative and judicial proceedings as a result of the non‑renewal of her contract of employment as a regular professor in the design department of the Université du Québec à Montréal. Following a decision by the Superior Court in one such proceeding, the respondent Louis Gill, a retired professor who was involved in the applicant’s case because of his union activities, decided to write an article in which he stated and commented vigorously on the facts surrounding the proceedings brought by the applicant. The article was published in the newsletter of the respondent Syndicat des professeurs et professeures de l’Université du Québec à Montréal (SPUQ), which was available on the Internet. In response to that publication, the applicant instituted this action in defamation against the respondents. The respondent Mr. Gill responded to the action by writing two more articles, which were also published in the same union newsletter. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the motion to institute proceedings. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
36666 Sarah Kucera v. Qulliq Energy Corporation
Employment law – Constructive dismissal – Repudiation
Ms. Kucera was hired as an Executive Assistant to the President and CEO of Qulliq Energy Corporation. She worked for Qulliq from July 1, 2009 to August, 2010. Ms. Kucera claimed that she was constructively dismissed from her position while Qulliq claimed that through her conduct, Ms. Kucera repudiated the employment contract. The trial judge concluded that Ms. Kucera was not constructively dismissed and the letter sent to Qulliq by her counsel was a repudiation of the employment contract and Qulliq was entitled to accept it as such. The majority of the Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal.
36700 Corey Rogers v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Defence – Self-defence
One evening at a pub in Hamilton, there was an altercation which ended with two men dead from knife wounds, and two other men in hospital. The trial judge instructed the jury on self-defence under the old s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code. After a trial by judge and jury, the applicant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder; one count of attempt to commit murder; and one count of aggravated assault. The Court of Appeal held that the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act does not apply retrospectively to offences that occurred prior to its coming into force. The Court of Appeal also considered the other grounds of appeal and dismissed the applicant’s appeal from conviction.
36675 Cordelle Alvin Pyke v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Conviction – Sentence
In 2011, the victim in this case was attacked outside his mother’s apartment and stabbed several times by a gang of young men. The Crown alleged that Cordelle Pyke was one of the attackers and inflicted one of the wounds. A Nova Scotia Supreme Court jury agreed and convicted him of several serious offences, including attempted murder. Mr. Pyke was sentenced to five years in prison, less credit for time served. Mr. Pyke appealed the verdict, asserting that it is unreasonable and the Crown appealed the sentence, asserting that it was too lenient.
The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the applicant’s appeal against conviction and the Crown’s appeal against sentence, subject to recalculation of the remand credit. The court held: it was exclusively for the jury to assess the complainant’s credibility and to draw all appropriate inferences; the jury had been properly charged on all issues; and, the verdict was one that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have entered. As to the sentence, the court held there was no error in principle and the sentence could not be labelled as demonstrably unfit in the circumstances.
36774 J. Robert Verdun v. Robert M. Astley
Civil procedure – Civil litigation – Civil contempt of court
Mr. Astley sued Mr. Verdun for libel and obtained a $650,000 judgment after a jury trial. Mr. Verdun has never paid any amount towards the judgment or the various costs judgments against him. The trial judge subsequently issued a broad injunction, prohibiting Verdun from communicating with anyone about Astley. Mr. Verdun breached that injunction. Mr. Astley’s counsel took the position that Verdun should serve 21 days in jail. Counsel for Mr. Verdun took the position that the objectives of sentencing could be met with a non-custodial sentence. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice sentenced for contempt of court. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.