36661 Gregory Logan v. Attorney General of Canada (On behalf of the United States of America)
Criminal Law – Extradition – Committal hearings
The applicant, Mr. Logan, engaged in cross-border smuggling of narwhal tusks from Canada to the United States and repatriated the proceeds of smuggling into Canada. He was charged in Canada and convicted of unlawfully exporting narwhal tusks to the United States in violation of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act,S.C. 1992, c. 52 (WAPPRIITA). The United States requested his extradition on charges of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and laundering monetary instruments. The Minister of Justice issued Authority to Proceed (ATP) to seek an order for Mr. Logan’s committal for extradition. According to Mr. Logan, he was unaware of the ATP when he pled guilty to the offence under the WAPPRIITA. He was sentenced to an eight-month conditional sentence of imprisonment and a $385,000 fine. At the plea and sentencing hearing, no mention was made of either the U.S. charges or of s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code that permits a sentencing judge to consider any facts forming part of the circumstances of the offence that could constitute a basis for a separate charge. The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick granted the Committal order and the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick dismissed the Appeal of the committal order.
36662 Gregory Logan v. Attorney General of Canada (On behalf of the Minister of Justice)
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal Law – Extradition
The applicant, Mr. Logan, engaged in cross-border smuggling of narwhal tusks from Canada to the United States and repatriated the proceeds of smuggling into Canada. He was charged in Canada and convicted of unlawfully exporting narwhal tusks to the United States in violation of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act,S.C. 1992, c. 52 (WAPPRIITA). The United States requested his extradition on charges of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and laundering monetary instruments. The Minister of Justice issued Authority to Proceed (ATP) to seek an order for Mr. Logan’s committal for extradition. According to Mr. Logan, he was unaware of the ATP when he pled guilty to the offence under the WAPPRIITA. He was sentenced to an eight-month conditional sentence of imprisonment and a $385,000 fine. At the plea and sentencing hearing, no mention was made of either the U.S. charges or of s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code that permits a sentencing judge to consider any facts forming part of the circumstances of the offence that could constitute a basis for a separate charge. Following the extradition proceedings, the Minister ordered Mr. Logan’s surrender to the United States. The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick dismissed the Application for judicial review of the surrender order.
36630 Robert Adamson et al. v. Air Canada et al.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review
The Applicants are all past members of the Air Canada Pilots Association (“ACPA”) and former employees of Air Canada who were forced to retire at age 60 due to the Mandatory Retirement Rule (“MRR”) in the collective agreement between Air Canada and the ACPA. They brought complaints against both organizations, alleging that the MRR constituted a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act (“CHRA”). The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal found that the MRR constituted prima facie discrimination. It rejected the organizations’ bona fide occupational requirement (“BFOR”) defences under s. 15(1) (a) of the CHRA. However, it accepted Air Canada’s defence under s. 15(1) (c), concluding that age 60 was the normal age of retirement for pilots in Canada. The complaints were therefore dismissed. In the Federal Court, the Applicants successfully challenged the Tribunal’s finding on the normal age of retirement. That part of the Tribunal’s decision was set aside and the issue remitted to the Tribunal for re-determination in accordance with the reviewing judge’s reasons. Air Canada and the ACPA both took exception to the Tribunal’s conclusion that neither had proven a BFOR under s. 15(1) (a) of the CHRA. The reviewing judge dismissed Air Canada’s application but allowed the ACPA’s application. As a result, the issue was also remitted to the Tribunal with specific directions as to how to re-determine the validity of the ACPA’s BFOR defence. The parties each appealed the decision. The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the reviewing judge erred in substituting his own opinion for that of the Tribunal on the normal age of retirement. The appeal of Air Canada and the ACPA are allowed on that issue. As a result of this conclusion the appeal court did not deal with the parties’ submissions regarding the BFOR defences. The Applicants’ appeal was dismissed and the appeals brought by Air Canada and ACPA were allowed.
36642 Frederick Junior Knife v. Her Majesty the Queen
Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Fundamental justice – Criminal Law
Mr. Knife was serving a sentence for manslaughter. He also had prior youth offences. In a gang-related prison fight, he and several co-assailants attacked and repeatedly stabbed an inmate. Also, Mr. Knife and another co-assailant repeatedly stabbed and threw a television set at another inmate who had attempted to intervene. Mr. Knife claimed that the attack was a pre-emptive strike undertaken for safety. Mr. Knife was convicted of aggravated assault and common assault. At sentencing, the Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation. The sentencing judge declared Mr. Knife a long term offender. The Court of Appeal in part allowed an appeal by the Crown and declared Mr. Knife a dangerous offender.
36665 Kenji Trotter v. Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America
Criminal law – Extradition – Committal hearings
The United States sought the Applicant’s extradition for conduct corresponding to the Canadian offences of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance and trafficking in a controlled substance. On May 7, 2012, a delegate of the Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed under section 15 of the Extradition Act,S.C. 1999, c. 18 (the “Act”), authorizing the Attorney General of Canada to seek the Applicant’s extradition. During the course of the extradition hearing, the Applicant brought an application pursuant to section 32(1)(c) of the Act to adduce evidence in the form of an affidavit from an alleged co-conspirator with a view to demonstrating that the prosecution’s key witness and others had lied to American authorities. The Applicant’s position was that the record of the case filed at the extradition hearing was manifestly unreliable and was not capable of supporting an order for his committal. The Supreme Court of British Columbia denied the Application to adduce evidence. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.
36615 SG Air Leasing Limited v. Inchatsavane Company (Proprietary) Limited also known as Inchatsavane Company (PTY) Ltd. and Goderich Aircraft Inc. and New United Goderich Inc.
Commercial law – Liens – Repairers’ liens
The respondent purchased an aircraft from the applicant and retained Goderich Aircraft to refurbish the aircraft’s interior. When Goderich Aircraft began to have financial difficulty, the applicant advanced funds to Goderich Aircraft to continue with the refurbishment. The applicant asserted that these funds constituted a “repair”, and that it was a “repairer” entitled to a non-possessory lien with respect to the aircraft, pursuant to the Repair and Storage Liens Act, R.S.O. 1990, c R.25. The applicant obtained an ex parte order for an interim and interlocutory injunction in respect of the aircraft, and sought further declaratory relief for the continuance of the injunction pursuant to the Act. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Motion for declaratory relief. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.
36716 Rennie Forsythe v. Michael Westfall, John Doe, Jevco Insurance Company, Intact Insurance Company
Courts — Jurisdiction — Presumptive connecting factors
The applicant, Ms. Rennie Forsythe, was a passenger on a motorcycle owned and operated by the respondent Mr. Michael Westfall, an Alberta resident, when they were involved in a single vehicle accident in British Columbia in 2012. Mr. Westfall claims the accident was caused solely by an unidentified driver. Ms. Forsythe was injured in the accident. She is an Ontario resident. She was treated for her injuries initially in British Columbia and Alberta, and thereafter in her home province of Ontario. Ms. Forsythe seeks damages for her injuries and commenced an action against Mr. Westfall, his insurer Jevco Insurance Company, her own insurer AXA Insurance (Canada), and John Doe, representing the unidentified driver. Mr. Westfall moved to have the action against him stayed on the basis that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over him. The motion judge agreed with Mr. Westfall’s position that there was not a real and substantial connection between the matter, the parties and Ontario. He followed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Tamminga v. Tamminga, 2014 ONCA 478, and held that Ms. Forsythe’s Ontario automobile insurance policy was not a factor that satisfied the real and substantial connection test. Ms. Forsythe appealed that decision. Her argument was that the Tamminga decision was wrongly decided and should be overturned. For that reason, the appeal was heard by a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
36720 Thomas Moffit v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law — Charge to jury — Bad character evidence
Following a trial by judge and jury, the applicant, Mr. Thomas Moffit, was convicted of second degree murder for the death of his domestic partner, Ms. Shelley Marie Mathieu-Read, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for at least 17 years. Ms. Mathieu-Read has not been seen or heard from since 2007. Her body was never found. The Crown’s case at trial relied heavily on the testimony of Mr. Moffit’s sister, Ms. Kathy Long, to whom he had apparently confessed his role in Ms. Mathieu-Read’s disappearance. Mr. Moffit argued the Crown had failed to prove both that Ms. Mathieu-Read was dead and that he was involved in her death. In the alternative, he submitted that if the jury was satisfied that Ms. Mathieu-Read was dead, and that he caused her death, the jury should find him guilty of manslaughter and not murder. Mr. Moffit appealed his conviction, but unsuccessfully.
36680 W.E.M. v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Evidence – Assessment
After a trial by judge alone, the applicant was convicted of sexual touching and sexual assault. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.
36672 George Mitchell Allgood v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Evidence – Confessions
George Allgood was charged with first degree murder and attempted murder. Respectively, the victims were the mother of Mr. Allgood’s child and her new partner. Mr. Allgood made confessions to those crimes in the context of a “Mr. Big” operation. During his dealings with the undercover officers, Mr. Allgood was exposed to violence on two occasions. He witnessed an abducted man who supposedly owed the organization money being assaulted. The abducted man was then taken down a trail, into a park by an undercover officer who, when out of sight, discharged his weapon, using live ammunition and returned alone. During the second scenario, Mr. Allgood accompanied an undercover officer to intimidate a woman (another officer) who purportedly knew about a murder committed by another member of the organization. The woman and her young daughter were threatened and her necklace was pulled from her neck by the officer. Mr. Allgood later confessed to the shootings at issue in this case during the interview with Mr. Big. At trial, Mr. Allgood testified that fear compelled him to falsely confess to Mr. Big. The officers testified that the purpose of the violent scenarios was not to intimidate Mr. Allgood, but rather to show that the organization approved of violent acts being done to non-members, including women.
Mr. Allgood was convicted of first degree murder and attempted murder by a judge sitting alone in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, who held the confession obtained by police was admissible evidence. Applying the analysis inR. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52,  2 SCR 544, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found the probative value of the confession to outweigh its prejudicial effect and there was no abuse of process by police, unanimously dismissing Mr. Allgood’s appeal.
36496 Her Majesty the Queen v. Alain Perreault
Criminal law – Appeals – Powers of Court of Appeal
Following a trial by judge and jury, the respondent Alain Perreault was convicted of the first degree murder of Lyne Massicotte. The respondent and the victim met on the Internet and agreed to meet at the respondent’s home. Ms. Massicotte was never seen again after that meeting. Suspecting the respondent, the police set up a “Mr. Big” operation designed to make him believe that he was being interviewed to join a criminal organization and that he had to tell the truth about Ms. Massicotte’s murder before he could be a member of the organization. The respondent then admitted that he had strangled Ms. Massicotte. The Court of Appeal initially dismissed the respondent’s appeal from his conviction, so the respondent filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court, which remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to be decided in accordance with R. v. Hart, 2014 SCC 52. On remand, the Court of Appeal found that the respondent’s admissions were admissible in accordance with the principles laid down in Hart, but it allowed the respondent’s appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial based on its application of R. v. Mack, 2014 SCC 58.
36598 C.S. and J.G v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company
Insurance – Liability insurance
The applicants, C.S. and J.G., have a homeowners’ insurance policy with the respondent, TD Home and Auto Insurance Company. The policy includes liability coverage if their personal actions cause unintentional bodily injury or property damage. C.S. and J.G. are defendants in a lawsuit where the anchor claim is that their daughter and two other girls, all Grade 8 students, bullied a fellow student, causing her physical and psychological injuries. The claim against C.S. and J.G. sounds in negligence, namely, their failure to control their daughter. C.S. and J.G. requested that TD defend and indemnify them pursuant to the insurance policy. TD refused, relying principally on two exclusion clauses in the policy. C.S. and J.G. brought an application seeking a declaration that TD had a duty to defend and indemnify them in the underlying action. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the application for a declaration that the respondent has a duty to defend and indemnify the applicants in the underlying action. The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, and declared the respondent does not have a duty to defend and indemnify the applicants.
36603 D.E. and L.E. v. Unifund Assurance Company
Insurance — Liability insurance
The applicants, D.E. and L.E., have a homeowners’ insurance policy with the respondent, Unifund Assurance Company. The policy includes liability coverage if their personal actions cause unintentional bodily injury or property damage. D.E. and L.E. are defendants in a lawsuit where the anchor claim is that their daughter and two other girls, all Grade 8 students, bullied a fellow student, causing her physical and psychological injuries. The claim against D.E. and L.E. sounds in negligence, namely, their failure to control their daughter. D.E. and L.E. requested that Unifund defend and indemnify them pursuant to the insurance policy. Unifund refused, relying principally on two exclusion clauses in the policy. D.E. and L.E. brought an application seeking a declaration that Unifund had a duty to defend and indemnify them in the underlying action. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the application for a declaration that the respondent has a duty to defend and indemnify the applicants in the underlying action. The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, and declared the respondent does not have a duty to defend and indemnify the applicants.
36634 Michele Santarsieri Inc., Panino Ventures Ltd., Antosant Enterprises ltd. and Macchia Enterprises Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of Finance (Manitoba)
Legislation — Interpretation — Statute providing right of appeal
The Manitoba Finance Minister deemed the applicants to be a single employer for the purpose of tax exemptions regarding remuneration paid to employees pursuant to s. 2(4.1) of The Health and Post Secondary Education Tax Levy Act, C.C.S.M., c. H24. The applicants appealed to the Tax Appeals Commission, which affirmed the assessment. The applicants then filed an application to appeal that decision in the Queen’s Bench. They also sought a determination as to whether the appeal would be a trial de novo or an appeal on the record. This application relates to the latter determination. The motions judge held that The Tax Administration and Miscellaneous Taxes Act, C.C.S.M., c. T2, s. 58, provided for an appeal de novo. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, ordering that the appeal was to be on the record.
36627 Amarjit Singh Sanghera v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Trial – Evidence
On May 9, 2011, Mr. Yadav was beaten and stabbed in a park in Vancouver. At trial, he testified that he was lured to the park by a promise that he would be paid money owed to him but Mr. Sanghera and two other men attacked him. In a statement to the police, he said that he did not see the knife used to stab him nor did he see who stabbed him. At trial, however, he testified that he saw the knife and that he saw Mr. Sanghera stab him. The trial judge rejected Mr. Sanghera’s account of the altercation. She accepted Mr. Yadav’s testimony as it related to the assault as accurate and credible. She considered some of Mr. Sanghera’s testimony in the context of all of the testimony from Mr. Yadav and determined that Mr. Sanghera’s evidence did not nonetheless raise a reasonable doubt. She held that she was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all three assailants, including Mr. Sanghera, intentionally participated in the assault with a common unlawful purpose. She then turned to Mr. Yadav’s testimony that Mr. Sanghera stabbed him and describing the knife. She rejected this as reconstructed memory. However, based on other testimony from Mr. Yadav that she did accept, she was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Sanghera was the man who stabbed Mr. Yadav. She convicted Mr. Sanghera of aggravated assault. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
36712 Pierre-Olivier Laliberté v. Her Majesty the Queen
Criminal law – Evidence – Admissibility
Following a jury trial, Mr. Laliberté was convicted of the first degree murder of Michaël Cadieux and the attempted murder of Barbara Fortin St‑Pierre. The prosecution’s main evidence at trial was DNA evidence, namely fingernail scrapings from Ms. St‑Pierre’s right hand, which revealed Mr. Laliberté’s full DNA profile. Mr. Laliberté presented alibi evidence corroborated by his father. He also argued that the DNA was from an encounter with Ms. St‑Pierre a week before the attack. The trial judge rebuffed the defence’s attempts to introduce into evidence statements made by Ms. St‑Pierre to an ambulance attendant and a physician indicating that she did not know the assailant. In instructing the jury, the trial judge also referred to the possibility of a fabricated alibi and stated that it was possible for the jury to infer Mr. Laliberté’s guilt if it believed that the alibi was fabricated. Mr. Laliberté appealed the convictions, raising several grounds of appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Hilton J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial. Mr. Laliberté filed a notice of appeal as of right to this Court on the questions of law on which Hilton J.A. had dissented.
36688 Humane Society of Canada for the Protection of Animals and the Environment v. Minister of National Revenue
Taxation — Income tax — Charitable organization
The applicant, Humane Society of Canada for the Protection of Animals and the Environment, pursuant to s. 172(3)(a.1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), appealed from a decision of the respondent, the Minister of National Revenue confirming the proposal to revoke the Society’s registration as a charitable organization, as defined under s. 149.1(1). The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36659 A.G. v. Public Curator of Quebec, ès qualités
Civil procedure – Motion to dismiss appeal
On January 27, 2010, the Superior Court ordered the institution of protective supervision in favour of the applicant’s mother in the form of tutorship to the person and to property. At the same time, the Public Curator of Quebec (“PCQ”) was appointed tutor to the person and to property for the applicant’s mother. The applicant and his brother subsequently initiated legal action to have the tutor replaced, which led to multiple proceedings over more than four years. In response to a new motion for a change of tutor, the PCQ asked that the motion be declared improper and therefore dismissed. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for change of tutor. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the motion to dismiss the appeal.
36625 René Barkley v. Her Majesty the Queen
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law
On February 24, 2003, Mr. Barkley pleaded guilty to charges of robbery, breaking and entering a dwelling‑house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, assault, forcible confinement, obstructing the course of justice, public mischief and sexual assault causing bodily harm. With the authorization of the Attorney General of Quebec, steps were taken to have him found to be a dangerous or long‑term offender. On June 11, 2015, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Barkley’s motion to extend the time to appeal the judgment rendered by Judge Tremblay nearly 12 years earlier finding him to be a dangerous offender and imposing a sentence of indeterminate detention.
36739 Danny Wayne Lalumiere v. Her Majesty the Queen
Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Trial
The applicant was in prison when he agreed to pay $5000 to an undercover police officer to have him kill his ex-wife and her partner. He was in prison serving a sentence for threatening his ex-wife and violating court orders imposed to protect her. The applicant was convicted of two counts of counselling to commit murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal dismissed his conviction appeal, but allowed his sentence appeal and reduced his sentence to 16-years followed by 10 years supervision.
36516 René Barkley v. Don Head, Stéphanie Jaillet and Attorney General of Canada
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Prisons – Prerogative writ
René Barkley, who was found to be a dangerous offender on November 12, 2003, submitted a third application for habeas corpus to the Superior Court. He challenged the assessment of his security classification prepared during the 2013 annual review, as confirmed by the warden of the maximum security penitentiary, which determined that he met the maximum security criteria. Based on his own assessment, he believed that he deserved a lower security classification, which would allow him to be in a minimum security institution. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application for habeas corpus. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
36622 Dominic Furfaro v. Agostino Cannavino, Pierre-Yves Bezzaz, in his capacity as returning officer for the English Montreal School Board
Right to education — Election — School board
On November 2, 2014, a school election was held in Quebec under the Act respecting school elections, C.Q.L.R., c. E-2.3. The applicant won the election. The respondent, the other candidate in the school election, applied to the Court of Québec for a judicial recount. The certificate issued by the Court of Québec reversed the previous result and declared the respondent the winner of the election. The applicant sought to appeal that decision. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a certificate issued under s. 155 of the Act respecting school elections.
36608 Syndicat national des travailleurs et travailleuses des pâtes et papiers d’Alma inc. v. Resolute FP Canada Inc.
Administrative law — Judicial review — Labour arbitration award
The employer is a transnational company that operates, among other things, a mill in Alma, Quebec. In 1993, a performance sharing program was established at that mill. Under the program, the employer paid bonuses to the employees — represented by the applicant — twice a year based on production targets that were revised every six months. The program was extended at least twice through the renewal of the collective agreement from 1993 to 2005. In 2003, before the collective agreement was renewed for 2005-2010, the parties agreed to continue the program until April 30, 2010 through a specific agreement. That agreement also gave the parties a right to terminate the program unilaterally following its evaluation. In March 2010, since the respondent said nothing about the fate of the program at the time of signing the memorandum of agreement signifying the renewal of the collective agreement for 2010-2015, the applicant considered the program to have been extended. However, in April 2010, the respondent informed the applicant that it was ending the program pursuant to the terms of the 2003 agreement. In response, the applicant filed two grievances contesting that decision and claiming the bonuses owed to employees. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for judicial review. The Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
36735 Zachry Owens v. Her Majesty the Queen
Charter — Right to counsel
The applicant, Mr. Owens, was charged with operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol in excess of the legal limit. Upon arrest, the police advised Mr. Owens of his right to counsel using the standard language from the O.P.P. issued card. The arresting officer asked Mr. Owens: “Do you understand?” and he answered: “Yes.” The arresting officer then asked Mr. Owens: “Do you wish to call a lawyer now?” and he replied: “No, not right now.” Mr. Owens was then taken to the police station where he provided breath samples. When Mr. Owens was returned to the arresting officer, that officer again asked whether he wished to speak to counsel. Mr. Owens replied: “No, I have nothing to hide”. He did not ask to speak to a lawyer at any point while in police custody.At trial, he brought an application to exclude the breath samples on the basis that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter had been breached. The trial judge dismissed the application, holding that Mr. Owens had never invoked his right to counsel, and convicted him. On appeal, the summary conviction appeal judge set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal. The Court of Appeal restored the conviction.
36722 Richard Timm v. Attorney General of Canada
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – Review of convictions
In 1995, Mr. Timm was convicted of the first degree murder of his adoptive parents. His appeal against the verdict was dismissed by the Quebec Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2001, Mr. Timm made a first application for review to the federal Minister of Justice, alleging that a miscarriage of justice had occurred: according to him, the police had fabricated evidence and concealed other evidence that could have revealed the fabrication. The application for review was dismissed, as were the application for judicial review, the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2013, Mr. Timm made a second application for ministerial review of his conviction, relying, inter alia, on the matter of the “incriminating statement” to the police in which he had allegedly admitted cutting the murder weapon. According to him, that statement had turned out to be non‑existent, which was new and important evidence in dealing with his case. The second application was dismissed on the ground that Mr. Timm had not provided any new facts or evidence. Mr. Timm then applied for judicial review of the Minister’s decision on the ground that it was unreasonable and contrary to s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
36638 Chief Melvin Goodswimmer, Jerry Goodswimmer, Walter Goodswimmer, Francis Goodswimmer, Pierre Chowace, Mildred Chowace and Donald Badger, Councillors of the Sturgeon Lake Indian Band and on behalf of the Sturgeon Lake Indian Band and the Sturgeon Lake Indian Band v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and the Attorney General of Canada
Civil procedure – Discovery – Undertakings
In January 1990, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and the Sturgeon Lake Indian Band entered into a Treaty Land Entitlement Agreement. The Agreement purported to settle a 1987 lawsuit between the Band and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta. In 1997, the Band commenced an action against Canada and Alberta, making additional land claims and asserting that Canada had obtained the Band’s consent to the Agreement through breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, equitable fraud, deceit or negligent misrepresentation, and without fully informing the Band of the impact of the Agreement on its members’ rights. Following examinations for discovery conducted in context of the litigation, the Band refused to answer 13 undertakings on the basis that the information sought was protected as privileged communication between solicitor and client. Canada and Alberta applied to compel answers to the undertakings. The case management judge allowed the application. The Band’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. O’Ferrall J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and set aside the case management judge’s order.
36761 Thomas Percy Tupper v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia representing Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia, Judgment Recovery (N.S.) Ltd., Harold F. Jackson, Q.C., Paul L. Walter, Q.C., Rob Stewart, Q.C. and John Kulik, Q.C.
Civil procedure – Abuse of process – Vexatious litigant
In 1985, the Applicant was ordered to pay non-pecuniary general damages to a plaintiff after a trial involving a motor vehicle accident. He has since instigated multiple lawsuits based on allegations that all concerned were behind an insurance fraud conspiracy against him. In the context of the present proceedings, the Respondents filed motions for summary judgment and alternatively for an order dismissing the proceedings as an abuse of process together with an order restraining the Applicant from initiating further proceedings without the leave of the court. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia granted Respondents’ motions for summary judgment. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal.