36922 Dan Mason v. Her Majesty the Queen
Taxation – Income tax – Goods and services tax
The applicant, Mr. Mason, operates an accountancy practice. Following an audit, the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) assessed Mr. Mason for tax years 2003-2007 by including in his personal income certain bank deposits. The Minister also assessed gross penalties. Mr. Mason appealed the assessment to the Tax Court of Canada. He asserted that the income from his accounting practice was earned by various corporations and trusts, rather than by him personally, and that the income generated was lower and the deducted expenses were higher, than assessed by the Minister. Mr. Mason further claimed entitlement to input tax credits (ITC) to recover the GST paid on certain expenses. The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeals and the matter was referred back to Minister for reconsideration and reassessment. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36925 Gerry Hedges v. Her Majesty the Queen
Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Taxation – Goods and Services Tax – Marihuana
Mr. Hedges started supplying dried marihuana to the British Columbia Compassion Club Society, a dispensary whose members suffer from various ailments, in 1999. He was not a licensed producer under the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227, rep. and repl. SOR/2013-119, s. 267, and he never obtained an Authorisation under those Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. The sales of medical marihuana by the Society to its members were not made in accordance with the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations. Mr. Hedges did not collect or remit GST on his sales to the Society and was reassessed $14,968.43, including interest and penalties.
The judge denied Mr. Hedges’ appeal of the reassessment, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his further appeal.
36842 Sarto Landry v. Pierre-Gabriel Guimont, ès qualités de syndic adjoint du Barreau du Québec
Law of professions – Discipline – Lawyers – Administrative law
The applicant was convicted of various charges by the disciplinary council (then known as the committee on discipline), including one count under section 149.1 of the Professional Code. This provision allows a syndic of a professional order, by way of a complaint, to seize a disciplinary council of any decision of a Canadian court finding a professional guilty of a criminal offence which, in the syndic’s opinion, is related to the practice of the profession, in this case, the applicant’s conviction for assault on March 24, 2006. On May 6, 2008, the disciplinary council found the applicant guilty of various counts, including one under section 149.1 of the Professional Code. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for judicial review. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
36829 David A. Jackson v. Her Majesty the Queen, The Ottawa Police Service
Criminal law – Evidence – Disclosure
Mr. Jackson was stopped for suspected impaired driving, taken to a police station and failed breathalyzer tests. He was charged with impaired driving offences. He filed a motion for disclosure of the breathalyzer’s service records, usage and calibration records, and data stored on the machine including the results of breath tests bracketing his test. At the motion hearing, experts disagreed on whether the records sought were required to ensure the breathalyzer test results were reliable. The motions judge ordered disclosure. The Ottawa Police Service and the Crown applied to quash the disclosure order. The applications judge dismissed the applications. The Ottawa Police Service complied with the disclosure order. Notwithstanding the mootness of the issue, the Court of Appeal heard the appeals and quashed the order for disclosure.
36932 Collin Mitchell Tremblay v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Jury – Inconsistent verdicts
Mr. Tremblay was charged with unlawfully touching a person under the age of 16 years for a sexual purpose and sexual assault. The complainant testified that when she was 14 and 15 years of age, she engaged in fellatio and sexual intercourse with Mr. Tremblay and no sexual act occurred against her will. Both charges were based on the same allegations. The trial judge instructed the jury that the offence of sexual interference required proof that Mr. Tremblay touched the complainant and the touching was for a sexual purpose. The trial judge instructed the jury that the offence of sexual assault required proof that Mr. Tremblay applied force directly or indirectly to the complainant and intended to apply force. The trial judge did not clarify that touching is sufficient force for the purpose of a conviction for sexual assault. Crown counsel requested an instruction that the charges rise and fall together. Defence counsel objected. The trial judge did not put that instruction to the jury. The jury acquitted Mr. Tremblay of sexual assault but convicted him of unlawful touching for a sexual purpose. The Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the appeal.
36810 ExxonMobil Canada Ltd., Nexen Inc., Bonavista Energy Corporation and Coastal Resources Limited v. Lynda Calder in her Capacity as Executrix of the Estate of Merville V. Stewart (Deceased), Lynda Calder, Morgan Stewart, Cody Stewart, Cody Stewart in her Capacity as Administrator or Litigation Representative for the Estate of James D. Stewart (Deceased) and as Litigation Representative for Morgan Stewart, Jerome Development Limited, Bowen Family Properties Ltd., Ronald B. Pole, Kevin R. Pole, Danny G. Oneil in his Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Mabel B. Oneil (Deceased), Robert Copley, Karen Nell Copley, Margaret Alice Demers, Mary Jean Biggar, Goldie Alberta Danielsen, Edna Keam, Wilma Marshall, Laurel Lee McLaren, 1088924 Alberta Ltd., and J. Timothy Bowes - and between - Esprit Corporation Ltd. v. Lynda Calder in her Capacity as Executrix of the Estate of Merville V. Stewart (Deceased), Lynda Calder, Morgan Stewart, Cody Stewart, Cody Stewart in her Capacity as Administrator or Litigation Representative for the Estate of James D. Stewart (Deceased) and as Litigation Representative for Morgan Stewart, Jerome Development Limited, Bowen Family Properties Ltd., Ronald B. Pole, Kevin R. Pole, Danny G. Oneil in his Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Mabel B. Oneil (Deceased), Robert Copley, Karen Nell Copley, Margaret Alice Demers, Mary Jean Biggar, Goldie Alberta Danielsen, Edna Keam, Wilma Marshall, Laurel Lee McLaren, 1088924 Alberta Ltd., and J. Timothy Bowes
Natural resources — Oil and gas — Leases — Standard of review
In the 1960s, predecessors to the parties entered into five petroleum and natural gas leases for a section of land north of Calgary. The lessee oil companies pooled their interests and drilled a well which produced from approximately 1969 until July 1995. The well was shut-in from July 1995 until January 2001, when it was put back into production. However, questions arose as to whether the leases had terminated in the interim. Each lease provided for a primary term of ten years, followed by an unlimited term if production continued. If production was interrupted or suspended due to a weak market or for any other cause beyond the lessees’ reasonable control (the “Shut-In Well Clauses”), the leases were continued. In 2005 and 2006, the lessors sued the lessees for, inter alia, a declaration that the leases had terminated in accordance with their terms and that the lessees were wrongfully producing natural gas from the well. They claimed damages and declarative relief.
The trial judge dismissed the lessors’ claims, and the counterclaims of the oil companies. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the leases had terminated in 1995. It ordered the oil companies to disgorge the well’s revenues less production, gathering and processing costs.
36955 Dale Carey v. Tegan Hurst
Family law – Custody and access – Jurisdiction – Mobility application granted
The parties lived together and had one child. The relationship deteriorated and the parties had no meaningful communication. The mother has received financial help and moral support from her parents, who live in Edmonton. The mother successfully brought a mobility application seeking to relocate to Edmonton to live with her parents, to obtain services for the child’s special needs and to obtain employment. The applications judge granted the mobility application and also ordered that Ms. H. could not remove the child from Ms. H.’s parents’ home without a court order to do so. The applications judge made no order for Mr. C.’s access to the child; rather, he “encouraged Mr. C. to commence his own application for access.”
The appeal was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal. The majority held that the applications judge erred in adding conditions to the order that Ms. H. shall live indefinitely with her parents and that she was prohibited from removing the child from the home and care of her parents without a court order. A majority of the Court of Appeal held that when those conditions were deleted, the order permitting Ms. H. to relocate with the child to Alberta was valid and was consistent with the applications judge’s decision and his application of the law. A majority of the Court of Appeal also held that there was no basis on which to conclude that the applications judge erred by omitting to make an order as to Mr. C.’s access at the same time as he granted the relocation application. White J.A., dissenting, would have set aside the judge’s order, and would have referred the matter back for a fresh hearing and disposition. White J.A., dissenting, would have held that the applications judge failed to exercise his jurisdiction by not dealing with access.
36911 Jameel Hosein Mohammed also known as Adolphus Cecil Wilson v. Corporation of the United Townships of Dysart, Dudley, Harcourt, Guilford, Harburn, Bruton, Havelock, Eyre and Clyde - and between - Jameel Mohammed also known as Jameel Abdool Hosein Mohammed, Abdool Mohammed, Adolphus Cecil Wilson, Adolphus Wilson v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Charter of Rights – Right to equality
In 2007, the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant in two separate applications brought by the respondents. His motions for extensions of time in which to file notices of appeal of these orders were dismissed. He sought to set aside the last order and moved for an extension of time to file notices of appeal. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared the applicant vexatious litigant. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for extension of time.
36894 Scott Gerard Beaudette v. Alberta Securities Commission - and - Attorney General of Alberta
Charter of Rights – Right to liberty – Fundamental justice – Securities
The Alberta Securities Commission (“ASC”) launched an investigation into the activities of Sunpeaks Ventures, Inc., a Nevada corporation of which the applicant was the former majority shareholder, sole director and officer. Sunpeaks had no employees and had minimal operations and revenue until February, 2012. Mr. Beaudette resided in Calgary at all material times and used his home address as Sunpeaks’ business address. Sunpeaks was at all times was a reporting issuer in the United States and subject to mandatory regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). In February 2012, Sunpeaks announced that it had entered into a share exchange agreement with a Delaware corporation. As part of the transaction, Mr. Beaudette cancelled 200,000,000 of his common shares and resigned as director and officer of Sunpeaks. The Sunpeaks shares reached a high of US$2.28 per share in April 17, 2012. By May 17, 2012, the price had dropped to US$0.10 per share. Two days later the ASC, issued an order stating that it would be investigating Sunpeaks and Mr. Beaudette regarding potential contraventions of the Securities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-4 (“Act”) relating to possible market manipulation. It served Mr. Beaudette with a Summons requiring him to produce documents and to attend for an examination pursuant to s. 42 of the Act. Mr. Beaudette took the position that the proposed examination would violate his Charter rights unless ASC provided written assurances that any evidence compelled from Mr. Beaudette would be kept confidential and would not be shared with US law enforcement agencies. The ASC refused to provide the assurances. Mr. Beaudette did not attend for his examination. The ASC commenced contempt proceedings. Mr. Beaudette brought an application, challenging the constitutionality of ss. 42 and 46 of the Act. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta dimissed the Applicant’s application challenging constitutionality of certain provisions of Securities Act. The Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.
36891 James T. Grenon v. Her Majesty the Queen
Charter of Rights – Right to equality – Discrimination based on sex
Mr. Grenon and his former spouse separated in 1998. They had two children who were minors at the time of separation. Ms. Grenon commenced family law proceedings in 1999 over the issues of custody, child support, spousal support and division of property. When matters were settled in 2001, Mr. Grenon was required to pay child support. Throughout, he was represented by counsel and incurred legal fees. In 2001, Mr. Grenon asked the Minister of National Revenue (“Minister”) to adjust his 1999 tax return to allow a deduction of $11,816.61 for legal expenses. By Notice of Reassessment, this request was denied. When Mr. Grenon filed his 2000 return, he deducted $165,187.70 in legal expenses incurred in the family law proceedings. The Minister denied the deduction. Mr. Grenon appealed, challenging the denial of deductions under s. 15 of the Charterand as a matter of statutory interpretation. The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.