36890  Gerald Dyke v. Her Majesty the Queen


Criminal law – Sentencing – Dangerous Offender

The applicant has a lengthy criminal record involving domestic violence. A jury found the applicant guilty of unlawful confinement and assault causing bodily harm against his girlfriend. The Crown brought an application to have the applicant declared a dangerous offender. At his sentencing hearing, the trial judge found that the statutory criteria were met and the applicant was declared a dangerous offender. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.

36856   Mohamed Balikwisha Patanguli v. Deputy Head (Department of Citizenship and Immigration)


Public service – Labour relations – Grievance – Judicial review

The applicant was a pre‑removal risk assessment officer with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in Calgary. In April 2010, he was dismissed following an internal investigation that found that he had improperly obtained the questions and answers for a selection exam for promotion and had used them for the exam. The applicant admitted receiving the exam questions and answers for the selection process in which he had participated and using them to prepare for and then complete the exam. However, he denied the allegation that he had entered the office of a co‑worker who had taken the exam before him to send himself the exam questions from her computer.

The applicant grieved his dismissal, arguing that it was too severe a disciplinary sanction. The adjudicator dismissed the grievance, finding that the evidence against the applicant was overwhelming and that the allegations made and proven had damaged the relationship of trust between employee and employer. The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36870   Jodi Graham, Colin J. Graham, by their litigation guardian, Cheryl Margaret Graham, Cheryl Margaret Graham, Joseph Raymond Graham and Christopher R. Graham v. Chrysler Canada Inc., Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc., Corepointe Insurance Company, formerly carrying on business as Daimler Chrysler Insurance


Insurance – Automobile insurance – Coverage

On May 18, 2006, Jodi Graham was a front seat passenger in a vehicle was t-boned on the passenger side by a vehicle driven by the respondent, Mario Pietrantonio. The vehicle was leased from the registered owner, Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. (“Daimler”). Pursuant to an agreement with Daimler, Chrysler Canada Inc. (“Chrysler”) allegedly had an ownership interest in the vehicle and the lease. As a result of the accident, Ms. Graham, suffered permanent injuries, the most severe being a traumatic brain injury for which she will require permanent 24 hour care. The lessees of the Pietrantonio vehicle, Luciano Pietrantonio and West End Tile Limited carried third-party liability insurance. Daimler carried a standard excess insurance policy that provided $10 million of coverage. This policy provided that coverage extended only to the named insured, Daimler, and excluded coverage for any lessee. The insurance coverage available was insufficient to cover the costs of Jodi’s future care. Several of the parties, including the applicants, brought motions for summary judgment regarding the extent of insurance coverage available and the availability of the tort of negligent entrustment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicants’ motion for declaration that driver was an un-named insured and dismissed the applicants’ claim against the respondents for negligent entrustment. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the applicants’ appeal.

36902   Ileshkumar Shah also known as Ileshkumarpadm Shah v. Bank of Montreal for itself and on behalf of all creditors of Amer Javed, Ileshkumar Shah also known as Ileshkumarpadm Shah and Mayaben Ileshkumar Shah


Contracts – Unconscionability – Loans – Personal guarantee

In 2011, the applicant delivered a personal guarantee in respect of a loan from the respondent BMO to a company operating a Country Style franchise in Newcastle, Ontario. In late 2011, the applicant resigned as a director of the company and ceased to have an active role in it, although he remained vice-president. In early 2013, the applicant contacted BMO’s account manager, seeking access to the company’s business account information, but was refused the information.

The company defaulted on the loan and a demand for payment was made upon the company and the applicant. In August 2014, BMO commenced an action against the applicant seeking payment of the amount of the personal guarantee. BMO then moved for summary judgment. The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the personal guarantee was unconscionable because BMO had failed to provide him with financial information on the small business account when he requested it. The motion was granted. The applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

36942   Donald Glen Bird v. Her Majesty the Queen


Criminal law – Sentencing

The applicant is an aboriginal with a lengthy sexual assault criminal record. The Crown applied to have him declared a dangerous offender. The sentencing judge found that the statutory criteria were met. The applicant was declared a dangerous offender and was sentenced to a determinate sentence of five years and a long-term supervision order of three years. The Court of Appeal granted the Crown’s application for leave to appeal sentence and allowed the sentence appeal. An indeterminate sentence was imposed.

36935   K. Matthew Hoang v. Mann Engineering Ltd., Aris Building Technologies, Cartwright Management, Mann Enterprises, Wu Ventures, Hay Solar Ltd. and Gigajoule Research and Development Ltd. (carrying on business as the “MANN GROUP”)


Employment Law – Wrongful dismissal – Civil Procedure – Appeals

Mr. Hoang was hired by the Mann Group (the “employer”) as CFO on a fixed-term contract of employment. According to Mr. Hoang, in the course of his employment, he received a better offer elsewhere and attempted, on that basis, to renegotiate his existing contract of employment. According to the employer, the company agreed to renegotiate the terms of employment, despite ongoing issues with Mr. Hoang’s job performance, insubordination, professionalism and civility, as it was in the midst of negotiations on a new project. As a result, an amended letter of employment was prepared; however, at trial, the parties disagreed as to whether the new employment contract came into existence at that time. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hoang’s employment was terminated for cause. Mr. Hoang commenced an action against the employer seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, sales commissions owing, and punitive and aggravated damages. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part, trial judgment varied.