Alex Boudreault v. Her Majesty the Queen


Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Constitutional law – Criminal law

In September 2013, Alex Boudreault pleaded guilty to four counts relating to various breaches of probation orders made between June and November 2012. A few months later, Mr. Boudreault pleaded guilty to other counts relating to breaches of a recognizance, breaking and entering dwelling‑houses, attempted break and enter, possession of stolen property, assault with a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon. In 2015, the Court of Québec sentenced Mr. Boudreault to imprisonment for 36 months and ordered him to pay a victim surcharge of $1,400. The same judgment rejected Mr. Boudreault’s arguments to the effect that the victim surcharge provided for in s. 737 of the Criminal Code infringed s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the surcharge did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment. Duval Hesler C.J. would have allowed the appeal in part to declare s. 737 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional.



Terry Thompson v. Correctional Service Canada Warden Atlantic Institution


Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Access to justice – Equal protection of law

The applicant sought to have the decision of the Registrar refusing to waive the requirement that he pay a filing fee for his action against the respondent set aside. The Registrar determined that she had no authority to waive filing fees. The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick dismissed the Applicant’s motion. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant’s motion to set aside decision of Registrar of Court of Appeal.


Levan Turner v. Attorney General of Canada


Human rights – Discriminatory practices – Employment

In February 2005, Mr. Turner filed a complaint under section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging that he had been the victim of discriminatory treatment during two hiring processes conducted in 2003 and 2004 by his former employer, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (“CCRA”), known since 2003 as the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”). He alleged discrimination on the prohibited grounds of age, race, colour and size (or perceived disability). Mr. Turner had applied for four different indeterminate positions as a customs inspector in Victoria and Vancouver. He was not selected for any of them. Only two competitive processes form the basis of his complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

In June 2010, the tribunal dismissed Mr. Turner’s complaint finding that the selection boards’ decisions not to hire Mr. Turner were reasonable and not a pretext. In June 2011, the Federal Court dismissed Mr. Turner’s judicial review application. In May 2012, the Federal Court of Appeal set aside the Federal Court’s decision, allowed the appeal, and returned the decision to the tribunal for reconsideration. It was concluded that the tribunal had failed to consider one of Mr. Turner’s alleged grounds of discrimination – perceived disability due to weight. The matter was returned to the tribunal for reconsideration so that it could take into account Mr. Turner’s submissions on perceived disability and the way in which that ground of discrimination may be intersected with other grounds alleged.

In March 2014, the tribunal rendered its decision after having reconsidered Mr. Turner’s complaint. It concluded that Mr. Turner had made out a prima facie case of discrimination on the combined grounds of age, race or nationality and perceived disability. The Federal Court allowed the Respondent’s application for judicial review and concluded that the matter should be referred back to another tribunal for reconsideration. Mr. Turner’s appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed.


Dustin Ward Paxton v. Her Majesty the Queen


Criminal law — Reasonable verdict — Evidence — Disclosure

The applicant, Mr. Paxton, was convicted of aggravated assault and sexual assault of DL, and of uttering threats of death or bodily harm against and assault with a weapon of AC. Mr. Paxton did not testify at trial, although an unsworn interview conducted earlier by the Calgary police was entered as evidence. In that interview, he denied committing the offences of which he was later convicted. The trial took place between September 27 and November 15, 2011. The Crown called 43 witnesses. The evidence included medical treatment records for both DL and AC. At the close of evidence, Mr. Paxton unsuccessfully filed an application to stay proceedings based on four main grounds, including 35 sub-grounds. The majority of those complaints related to the late disclosure of certain social media documents and to the means of interviewing witnesses used by the Calgary Police service. The resulting voir dire occupied 18 days of court time, with 14 witnesses giving evidence; closing arguments took almost two days. (See the ruling on the voir dire here: 2012 ABQB 96 .) None of the alleged grounds for a stay were established to the satisfaction of the trial judge who gave extensive written reasons for her decisions. She concluded that, while there were a few instances of late, but remedied, disclosure, Mr. Paxton had sustained no resulting prejudice. She found that the defence allegations were largely overstated, and except in a few instances were unfounded and did not establish a breach of Charter rights, an abuse of process or prejudice. The subsequent appeal was dismissed.


Jean-René Gauthier v. René Huard, 9109-4805 Québec Inc.

- and -

Jean Comtois, 6102069 Canada Limitée


Civil procedure — Appeal — Suretyship

The applicant is challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision to order a suretyship in the amount of $50,000.00 for legal costs and part of the judgment amount and to stay the appeal from the judgment awarding damages until that amount was paid. The Quebec Superior Court awarded injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to dismiss appeal, appeal stayed.


Robert Dill Sr., Lillian Dill and Lilrob Ltd. v. Bruce P. Kriegman in his capacity as Court Appointed Chapter 11 trustee for LLS America LLC

- and between -

Robert Dill Jr. and Tracey Dill v. Bruce P. Kriegman in his capacity as Court Appointed Chapter 11 trustee for LLS America LLC


Private international law – Foreign judgments – Recognition – Enforcement

The applicants brought motions to set aside the respondent trustee’s registration in Manitoba of a judgment in three actions by a Washington Bankruptcy Court. The judgment held the applicants liable for various amounts they had loaned and received as interest under what was held to be to a Ponzi scheme involving Canadian and American corporations and lenders. One of the issues in dispute was whether the applicants had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Washington Bankruptcy Court. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba dismissed the applicants’ motions to set aside registration the foreign judgment, holding that there was real and substantial connection between the Washington court and the underlying dispute and that the applicants did in fact attorn to the jurisdiction of the Washington court. The Court of Appeal of Manitoba dismissed the applicants’ motions to adduce fresh evidence and their appeals.


Tony Agostino v. William Downe and Bank of Montreal


Courts – Federal Court – Jurisdiction

The Respondent, Bank of Montreal brought a motion to stay proceedings in the Federal Court commenced by Mr. Agostino because the issue raised in those proceeding had already been dealt with in a proceeding between the same parties in the Court of Quebec, Civil Division. The motion was granted and attempts to review or appeal the decision were dismissed.


Claude Gouin, in his capacity as assistant syndic of the Ordre des denturologistes du Québec v. Daniel Bergeron, Linda Gaudreault, José Antonio Flores-Penagos, Yessica Beatriz Marroquin, Fabian Gastan, Robin Lapointe, Sofiane Mahroug, Michael Paventi, Christian Chbat, Stéphanie Carrier, Nathalie Charron, Éric Gauthier, Larry Lapointe, Yves Lapointe,, Marie-Josée Thibault, Stéphane Leroux, Annie Trahan, Anne Boudreault, Tran Duc Dang-Khoa, Daniel Gaudreau, Sophie Duchesneau, Gilles Pelletier, Stéphanie Lapierre, Marc Pinsonneault


Administrative law – Judicial review – Law of professions

The applicant is an assistant syndic of the Ordre des denturologistes du Québec (“ODQ”). On October 27, 2009, the syndic of the ODQ filed a disciplinary complaint containing nine charges against each of the respondents, who were members of the ODQ, with regard to advertisements run by Centres dentaires Lapointe (“CDL”) between 2007 and 2009. Each complaint contained nine charges under the Code of Ethics of the ODQ and the Professional Code. On January 19, 2011, the ODQ’s disciplinary council convicted the respondents of six of the nine charges. On November 9, 2011, it rendered its decision on the penalty. The respondents appealed the decision on the conviction and the decision on the penalty to the Professions Tribunal. The applicant contested the decision on the penalty. On March 14, 2014, the Professions Tribunal allowed the appeal, acquitted the respondents and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found, inter alia, that the disciplinary council had erred in assessing the evidence by relying on an expert opinion that encroached on its jurisdiction and that it had also made a palpable and overriding error in applying the law to the facts with respect to the respondents’ guilt. On April 24, 2014, the applicant applied for judicial review of the Professions Tribunal’s decision. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion for judicial review. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.