James Baker v. Daniel McCallum

Evidence – Experts’ reports –Rule 53.03 of Rules of Civil Procedure

On March 23, 2009, Mr. McCallum was injured in a motor vehicle accident when his vehicle was struck from behind by a car driven by Mr. Baker. He claims that his injuries prevent him from returning to work and severely curtail his activities. At trial, he called evidence from several medical witnesses. The trial judge permitted some medical witnesses to give evidence without complying with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. Rule 53.03 sets out requirements for introducing expert opinion evidence. A jury awarded Mr. McCallum damages totalling $787,275 and the trial judge issued an award for that amount. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Baker’s appeal. 


Estate of William Gee v. Jeremy Westerhof

Evidence – Experts’ report - Rules 53.03 and 4.1 of Rules of Civil Procedure

On April 22, 2004, Mr. Westerhof was injured in a car accident. He claimed serious and permanent impairment to important physical, mental or psychological functions. At trial, he proposed to call evidence from several medical witnesses. The trial judge allowed some of the proposed evidence and excluded some on the basis that it was not compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. A jury’s award for general damages and past loss of income was less than collateral benefits already received. The trial judge dismissed the action. The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and ordered a new trial.


Sean William Doak v. Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America

Extradition – Committal hearings

The applicant, Sean Doak, is currently awaiting extradition to the United States in relation to criminal charges for his alleged involvement in a conspiracy to traffic large amounts of drugs across the Canada-US border. Following the issuance of the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s order committing Mr. Doak into custody under the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18, the Minister ordered Mr. Doak’s surrender to the United States. Mr. Doak’s appeal and application for judicial review of the Minister’s surrender order were dismissed by the British Columbia Court of Appeal.


Former clients of James represented by Antonito Agozzino Professional Corporation (Alida Trevisan, Neda Moeini, Albert Tarzi, Marco Lorenti, Adessa International & Others)(The "Agozzino" clients) v. Her Majesty the Queen

Judgments and orders – Interlocutory orders

Mr. James is a lawyer practising in Ontario who was charged with money laundering offences. The applicants are some of his former clients. The Crown maintained that two of his companies, Eveline Holdings Ltd. (“Eveline”) and Sterling Capital Corporation (“Sterling”) were at all times under his control and direction in connection with those offences. Search warrants were obtained authorizing searches of his home and office. In 2011, a Referee was appointed by the court to segregate documents seized from Mr. James that were protected by solicitor-client privilege from those that were not, in order to assist the court at a subsequent hearing. The Referee’s fees were paid by the Crown. In July, 2014, a hearing pursuant to R. v. Lavallee, 2002 SCC 61 was held to ensure that truly privileged communications remained confidential. The Crown applied to the court for the release of non-privileged material seized from Mr. James. No one appeared for the companies and they did not participate at the hearing. The court held that the two companies were not separate entities from Mr. James for the purpose of claiming solicitor and client privilege. Several months later, the Crown disclosed information indicating that as of February, 2012, another person was the beneficial owner of Eveline and Sterling. The applicants maintained that the Crown had been aware of this information at least six months before the Lavallee hearing and that it was materially different from the representations made by the Crown during the course of the hearing. The Referee concluded that he was obliged to determine whether the fairness of the Lavallee hearing had been compromised by a material non-disclosure by the Crown. By that time, the Referee’s contract had come to an end. The Crown refused the Referee’s request for continued funding and for an extension of time to inquire into the non-disclosure issue. The Referee brought an application for directions. Mr. James and some of his former clients brought an application to re-open the Lavallee hearing, for the return of materials already disclosed to the Crown and for the appointment of a new referee. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Referee’s motion for directions and dismissed the Applicants’ motions.


Jeffrey Sebben v. Her Majesty the Queen

Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – Search and Seizure

An off duty police officer saw the applicant driving his vehicle in an erratic manner. A different officer stopped the applicant and administered a roadside breath test and the applicant passed the test. In the course of checking the CPIC database and other related data bases, the police officer received information about a possible connection that the applicant had to drugs. The officer decided to ask the applicant if he would consent to a search of his vehicle. In the course of a very brief discussion that ensued, the applicant produced a bag of marihuana. The officer arrested him for possession of that marihuana and proceeded to conduct a search of the vehicle as an incident of that arrest. The officer found more drugs. The applicant was convicted of possession of marihuana; possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of hashish for the purpose of trafficking. The applicant’s conviction appeal was dismissed.


Community Association of New Yaletown v. City of Vancouver, Development Permit Board, Brenhill Developments Limited

Municipal law – By-laws

The applicant, Community Association of New Yaletown (“CANYˮ), is a group of citizens opposed to a development in downtown Vancouver. Jubilee House is an affordable housing building located at 508 Helmcken Street (“508”) that was owned by the City of Vancouver. It was in a state of disrepair and required significant expenditures to address its deficiencies. Brenhill Developments Limited (“Brenhillˮ) owned 1077-1099 Richards Street (“1099ˮ) across the street from 508 where it had an office and had several tenants. In 2011, Brenhill approached the City with a proposal to construct a 162-unit replacement building for Jubilee House on its 1099 property and, once completed, would turn it over to the City if the City transferred 508 to Brenhill and closed an adjacent lane. The City was interested in this project and its technical staff negotiated a Land Exchange Contract and other related agreements with Brenhill and issued a development permit for the new Jubilee House. City Council enacted a rezoning by-law for 508 to accommodate Brenhill’s proposed development and issued a development permit for 1099 and City Council adopted a new rezoning by-law for 508 largely replicating the one that was quashed. As a result, an issue of mootness lies at the threshold of this proceeding. CANY successfully applied to quash the by-laws and development permit, alleging that the City’s public disclosure was inadequate and the process was artificially divided into stages. Shortly before the appeals were heard, the Development Permit Board issued a new development permit for 1099 and City Council adopted a new rezoning by-law for 508 largely replicating the one that was quashed. The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondents’ appeals and issued a declaration that the by-laws and development permit were valid.


Her Majesty the Queen v. Gordon Shane Kennedy

Criminal law – Standard of appellate review

The victim testified that he went to the house of an acquaintance when he was chased by two or three men and was narrowly missed by a swinging machete. After reviewing the evidence, the trial judge convicted the respondent of assault with a weapon. On appeal, the conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.


Khushwant Sidhu, also known as Kris Sidhu, Zafir Rashid, also known as Zaf Rashid and Satpreet Thiara, also known as Sat Thiara v. Pitblado LLP

Judgments and orders ― Summary judgments

In a summary judgment, the applicant clients were ordered to pay the respondent law firm $49,377.54 plus interest and costs. The amount of the summary judgment represented the outstanding balance owed to the law firm by the clients as fees for services rendered. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.


Pacific Newspaper Group Inc., a division of Canwest Mediaworks Publication Inc./Publications Canwest Mediaworks Inc. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 2000, British Columbia Labour Relations Board

Judicial review – Standard of review

The respondent union issued an unfair employer declaration (“UED”) against Telus Corporation and related companies (“Telus”). As a result, the employees of the applicant refused to handle advertisements Telus tried to publish in two B.C. newspapers. The UED was rescinded five weeks later when the labour dispute with Telus was resolved. After the UED was issued, the applicant filed a grievance for damages under the collective agreement and an application with the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (the “Board”) under s. 70 of the Labour Relations Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 244 (the “Code”). Under that provision, the Board “may, in its discretion, issue a declaratory opinion” that the UED was void, if it is satisfied that the UED is substantially affecting the applicant’s business or operations.

The application was dismissed, triggering a series of Board decisions and reconsiderations, judicial reviews and appeals. In a fourth reconsideration decision, the Board determined that it has the jurisdiction to exercise discretion in determining whether or not to issue a declaratory opinion under s. 70 of the Code. It further concluded that s. 70 does not give the Board jurisdiction to make “an order” or to find a contravention of the Code that would provide a basis to seek damages. Given the nature of s. 70, the Board ultimately confirmed previous Board decisions declining to exercise the discretion to issue a declaratory opinion on the facts of the case. An application for judicial review was dismissed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as was an appeal to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia.


Shappour Jannesar v. Sabiha Ali Sultan Yousuf

Private international law – Foreign judgments

The applicant Mr. Jannesar, a resident of Kuwait, obtained a judgment in his favour from a Kuwaiti court.  The judgment was rendered by default and ordered the respondent Ms. Ali Sultan Yousuf, a Quebec resident, to pay him half of the compensation she had received under a compensation scheme established by the United Nations Compensation Commission following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1991.  The judgment stated, inter alia, that Ms. Ali Sultan Yousuf had been validly served under Kuwaiti law.  In 2011, Mr. Jannesar applied to the Quebec Superior Court for recognition of the foreign judgment. Applying the presumption in art. 2822 C.C.Q. that a foreign judgment makes proof of its content, the Superior Court allowed the application.  The Court of Appeal set aside that decision.


Commission scolaire francophone, Territoires du Nord‑Ouest, Catherine Boulanger and Christian Girard v. Attorney General of the Northwest Territories and Commissioner of the Northwest Territories

Charter of Rights — Constitutional law — Minority language educational rights

École Boréale, the only French‑language school in Hay River in the Northwest Territories, opened in 2005. The school is for children at the primary and secondary levels. In May 2008, the applicants brought an action concerning the scope of the obligations of the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) as regards French‑language instruction for the French linguistic minority population of Hay River. Specifically, the dispute concerned the adequacy and quality of the infrastructure provided by the GNWT for the French‑language instruction program offered at École Boréale, the degree of autonomy and control the Commission scolaire francophone des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest should be able to exercise, and the respective rights of the government and the CSFTN-O regarding the establishment of admission criteria for the French‑language instruction program. As a remedy, the applicants sought an order compelling the GNWT to expand École Boréale and various declarations regarding the scope of the CSFTN-O’s powers of management. They challenged the constitutional validity of the definition of the term “parent” in the Education Act and of a 2008 directive from the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment governing admission criteria for the French-language instruction program. That directive provided that the Commission scolaire could not, without the Minister’s authorization, permit the enrolment of a student who did not meet the criteria set out in s. 23 of the Charter with regard to minority language educational rights. The Northwest Territories Supreme Court ordered the GNWT to expand the school to add (i) gymnasium, (ii) spaces and rooms for teaching subjects like music, art, home economics and English as second language, (iii) laboratory for teaching science at secondary level, and (iv) space that could accommodate pre-kindergarten program. The GNWT was also ordered to ensure fair access to space in neighbouring English school for career and technology studies classes. The Court declared the ministerial directive to be of no force or effect and made an order awarding the applicants their costs on solicitor-client basis. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judgment and reinstated the ministerial directive.


Association des parents ayants droit de Yellowknife, La Garderie Plein Soleil, Yvonne Careen, Claude St-Pierre and Fédération Franco-Ténoise v. Attorney General of the Northwest Territories and Commissioner of the Northwest Territories

Charter of Rights — Constitutional law — Minority language educational rights

The applicants in this case are an association of parents asserting rights under s. 23 of the Charter, two rights‑holder parents, an association that runs the French daycare in Yellowknife and the Fédération Franco‑Ténoise, a federation of several Francophone associations in the Northwest Territories. Minority language education has been provided at École Allain St‑Cyr in Yellowknife since 1989. A separate school building was built and opened in 1999. In 2000, the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) gave control of minority language education to the Commission scolaire francophone des Territoires du Nord‑Ouest. In 2005, the applicants brought an action alleging that the school facilities fell below the minimum constitutional requirements for minority language educational facilities. The relief sought consisted of an increase in the capacity of École Allain St-Cyr as well as the construction of specific specialized facilities. The dispute also included some fundamental disagreements about the scope and interpretation of s. 23 of the Charter. The Commission scolaire did not participate in the litigation. The Northwest Territories Supreme Court ordered the GNWT to expand the school to add, among other things, (i) gymnasium, (ii) spaces and rooms for teaching subjects like music, art, home economics and English as second language, (iii) laboratory for teaching science at secondary level, (iv) work spaces for staff members, and (v)  space that could accommodate pre‑kindergarten program as well as extra space for daycare. The Court ordered the GNWT to ensure fair access to space for career and technology studies classes; and awarded the applicants their costs on solicitor‑client basis. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and made declarations, including (i) that École Allain St-Cyr required gymnasium and space for teaching students with special needs, (ii) that GNWT had to take steps to ensure access to specialized facilities, (iii) that daycare and pre‑kindergarten not included in expression “primary or secondary school instruction” in s. 23 ofCharter, (iv) that territorial government could exclude from admission persons who were not rights holders under s. 23 of Charter, and (v) that children of non‑rights holders were not to be counted in determining whether numbers warranted educational facilities.


Alexander March, Sima March v. Attorney General of Canada, representing the United States of America

Extradition – Committal hearings

The United States of America requested the extradition of the applicants, Alexander and Sima March, American citizens who also have Canadian and Israeli citizenship, respectively, to answer criminal charges for fraud in New York State. They have five children aged 12 and under. The Superior Court ordered the committal of the two applicants. In light of the legal principles established in United States of America v. Ferras, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 77, it found that committal for trial was justified. The Minister of Justice then made surrender orders. The applicants appealed the surrender orders and also applied for judicial review of the orders. The Court of Appeal dismissed their proceedings.


Scott & Associates Engineering Ltd. v. Finavera Renewables Inc.

Unjust enrichment — Equitable remedies — Constructive trust

The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta awarded damages of $600,000 plus GST to Scott & Associates Engineering Ltd. for unjust enrichment. The claim for breach of duty of confidence and the counterclaim were dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.


Stéphane Marleau v. Her Majesty the Queen

Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Sentencing

In 2009, the Court of Québec sentenced Mr. Marleau, the applicant, to concurrent seven-year terms of imprisonment for 28 counts of armed robbery, and to a consecutive three-year term of imprisonment for one count of using an imitation firearm. In January 2012, following a facilitation conference, the Court of Appeal reduced Mr. Marleau’s seven-year sentence to five years for the 28 counts of armed robbery to which he had pleaded guilty so that it reflected the joint submission made by the parties at trial. In the Court of Appeal, Mr. Marleau did not challenge the minimum three-year sentence. He now asks the Court to grant him leave to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment and to reduce the three-year sentence on the basis that it violates ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Peterborough Regional Health Centre v. Heike Hesse and Erkenraadje Wensvoort on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated

- and between -

Mandy Edgerton Reid v. Heike Hesse and Erkenraadje Wensvoort on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated

Privacy law – Breach of privacy rights

Erkenraadje Wensvoort is a representative plaintiff in a proposed class action. She and 280 other patients of the Peterborough Regional Health Centre (“the Hospital”) received notices from the Hospital, as required by the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act, S.O. 2004, c. 3, Sch. A (“PHIPA”), indicating that the privacy of her personal health information had been breached. Mandy Edgerton Reid, is a registered practical nurse who worked at the Hospital. The statement of claim states that she and other individual defendants, who were all Hospital employees when the breaches occurred, improperly accessed and disclosed patient records. Ms. Wensvoort initially relied on breaches of PHIPA to assert a cause of action. The statement of claim was subsequently amended to contain only the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion (breach of privacy), recognized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, 108 O.R. (3d) 241. The Hospital brought a motion to strike the claim and dismiss the action, on the ground that PHIPA is an exhaustive code that ousts the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to entertain any common law claim for invasion of privacy rights in relation to patient records. The Hospital’s motion and its subsequent appeal was dismissed.


Attorney General of British Columbia v. Provincial Court Judges' Association of British Columbia

Constitutional Law – Division of powers – Judicial Review

Pursuant to the Judicial Compensation Act, S.B.C. 2003 c. 59, a Judges Compensation Commission’s (“JCC”) report in 2010 (the “2010 Report”) was put before the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Three of 15 recommendations for Provincial Court Judges’ compensation set out in the 2010 Report are in issue: a salary increase compounded annually over  fiscal years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14; an increase in the Judges’ pension accrual rate from 3% to 3.5%; and, an extension of the pension contribution period from age 71 to age 75. These three recommendations and one that is not in issue were rejected by the Legislative Assembly’s 2011 Response. On an application for judicial review, Macaulay J. ordered the Legislative Assembly to reconsider its 2011 Response, finding that it had wrongly diverted its attention from the evidence and conclusions of the Commission as they related to the applicable constitutional requirements. In 2013, the Legislative Assembly issued a second response, its 2013 Response. It approved only a 1.5% salary increase in fiscal year 2013-2014. It made no change to the pension accrual rate or the pension contribution period.  The Provincial Court Judges’ Association of British Columbia unsuccessfully applied for judicial review of the 2013 Response. A majority of the Court of Appeal granted an appeal and set aside the 2013 Response.


Chérita Johnson-Richard v. Mario Bilodeau, Comité de déontologie policière du Québec

Administrative law – Police ethics committee

The applicant went before the Superior Court to contest the decision of the Comité de déontologie policière, which allegedly contained comments damaging to her reputation. The Superior Court concluded that the administrative decision maker was immune and that the action was prescribed. The Court of Appeal refused to hear the appeal, a decision the applicant is challenging in this application for leave to appeal, relying on her right to be heard in court.


Her Majesty the Queen, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency v. Paradis Honey Ltd., Honeybee Enterprises Ltd. and Rocklake Apriaries Ltd.

Torts – Negligence – Class actions

Beekeepers replenish losses to their colonies either by introducing a “package”, (a container holding a small colony, including a queen) or introducing a “queen” (with a few attendant bees). Under the Health of Animals Act, S.C. 1990, c. 21, the Minister may make regulations prohibiting the importation of any animal for the purpose of preventing a disease or toxic substance from being introduced into Canada. Absent specific regulations, animal importation is managed through ministerial permits under s. 160 of the Health of Animals Regulations, C.R.C. 296 (“Regulations”). The Minister made a series of specific regulations prohibiting the importation of honeybees into Canada from continental United States due to concerns about a tracheal mite bee pest. Under the last regulation, the prohibition did not apply to the importation of a honeybee queen and its attendant bees from the US pursuant to a permit issued under s. 160 of the Regulations. When it expired in 2006, the regulation was not renewed or replaced by formal Ministerial Order or Directive.  Instead, the continued importation of queen and attendant bees was allowed under permit, but the Minister adopted a policy that no permits would be issued for the importation of packages. The respondents filed a motion for certification of a class action. They claimed the applicants owed them a duty of care under the legislation and through their interactions with the beekeeping industry, and had been negligent in allowing an improper continuation of the prohibition on importation of honeybees from the US. They also claimed that the applicants acted without lawful authority by imposing a de facto prohibition on importations in 2007 and onward, and abdicating their authority to an improper third party to make decisions on improper considerations. The applicants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and the respondents filed a motion record attaching a proposed amended statement of claim. The Federal Court granted the applicants’ motion to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, and dismissed the action with costs. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court judgment and dismissed the motion to strike, making no order as to costs.


Lucian Baiu v. Angela Baiu

Family Law – Family assets – Net family property calculation

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued orders for custody, access, retroactive and continuing child support, spousal support for the respondent and for equalization payment payable by the applicant in the amount of $134,808.49. The Applicant’s appeal was dismissed except that the order for spousal support of $1 per annum payable by applicant was deleted from judgment.


Kin Fong v. Her Majesty the Queen

Charter of Rights – Presumption of innocence – Right to fair hearing – Taxation

Mr. Fong filed four appeals from four orders made by the Tax Court of Canada. The appeals all challenged the Minister’s tax reassessments for Mr. Fong for the 2001-2009 taxation years. The Federal Court of Appeal categorized some of these appeals as discretionary while other appeals sought legal relief. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals.


Sylvain Lambert v. Whirlpool Canada LP, Whirlpool Canada Inc., Whirlpool Corporation

Civil procedure – Class actions

The Applicant bought a Whirlpool front-loading washing machine in April 2004. In 2005, he began to notice foul odours emanating from the machine and complained to the Respondents, who advised him to contact the retailer. The latter provided maintenance instructions and sold him a five-year extended warranty. On 21 December 2009, the Consumer Law Group, through an initial proposed representative, acting as petitioner, launched a class action against the Respondents patterned after similar class actions in other jurisdictions. The Applicant replaced that initial proposed representative on February 14, 2013. The Superior Court of Quebec denied the motion for authorization to institute class action and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.


Chief R. Donald Maracle in his personal capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of the members of the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada

Human rights — Right to equality — Federal funding of Aboriginal bands

The applicant First Nations are four of the five largest First Nations in Ontario. They argue that the federal funding for core programs and services is discriminatory because it differentiates adversely based on size. The First Nations asked the Commission to order the elimination of the discriminatory features in the distribution formulae such that any per capita differences would be due solely to proven economies of scale and urban proximity, without reducing funding to smaller First Nations. After some initial proceedings the complaint was assigned to an investigator who recommended that the complaint be dismissed on the basis that the evidence did not support the allegations that the First Nations were treated in an adverse, differential manner. In so finding, she appeared to accept the findings of a report that the First Nations had not previously known about. After review and comment by both parties, the Commission dismissed the complaint on the basis that the evidence gathered does not support the allegation, and that, if they did support the allegation, this is not based on national or ethnic origin. The First Nations applied for judicial review of that decision. The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.


John Schertzer, Steven Correia, Joseph Miched, Raymond Pollard v. Her Majesty the Queen

Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – Self-incrimination

Toronto police officers searched an apartment. The officers allege that the search occurred after a search warrant was issued. The occupants of the apartment alleged that it occurred at a time before the search warrant was issued. The officers’ allegation was recorded in police memo books, a Supplementary Record of Arrest, an Information to obtain another search warrant and affidavits. It was repeated in testimony at a preliminary inquiry. Depending on their roles, officers were charged with attempting to obstruct justice or perjury or both offences. Before trial, a Toronto Police Services’ memo advised officers who were potential witnesses that they did not have to submit to an interview with defence counsel and they should notify Toronto Police Services if they intended to so, so arrangements could be made to have a Professional Standards Special Task Force officer present. The trial judge dismissed a motion by the defence to stay proceedings on the basis that the memo was an abuse of process. At trial, an officer testified that he received authorisation for the search at 10:32 pm at the police station, he served it at the apartment, and he returned to the station by 10:54 pm. To challenge this testimony, Crown counsel admitted the evidence of an officer who conducted trials of the time needed to drive from the police station to the apartment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice convicted Schertzer, Correia, Miched and Pollard for attempting to obstruct justice and convicted Correia and Pollard for perjury. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals.


Loc Nguyen v. Attorney General of Quebec

Civil procedure – Motion for leave to appeal

This case arises out of an action brought against the Attorney General of Quebec on November 19, 2013, nearly a year after the Superior Court dismissed an action instituted around November 15, 2012 against the Société des loteries du Québec and after a Court of Appeal judge refused to grant leave to appeal that judgment. The applicant has since claimed a trillion dollars from the respondent. The Quebec Superior Court allowed a motion to dismissed the action and the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.


Eleanor Martin v. Her Majesty the Queen

(FC) (Civil) (By Leave)

Civil Procedure — Costs — Pre-proceedings conduct

Ms. Martin was assessed under s. 160 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) in respect of her late husband’s tax liability. Ms. Martin was successful in her appeal from this assessment at the Tax Court of Canada. The Tax Court released a subsequent cost decision and fixed costs to Ms. Martin at $10,635. The costs decision, not the main decision, was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the cost order of the Tax Court and awarded Ms. Martin $4,800 in costs plus disbursements and taxes.