M.P. v. L.J. (Que.)

Family Law – Jurisdiction

M.P. and L.J. are respectively father and mother of a minor. A 2012 judgment of the Superior Court of Québec inter alia granted sole custody of the child to L.J., authorized her to move to Ontario with the child, and granted M.P. certain access rights to the child. As authorized by the judgment, the mother moved to Ontario with the child. The father remained in Montréal. In 2017, the father sought to restore his access rights by filing an application with the Superior Court in Montréal. L.J. responded with a declinatory exception, invoking lack of jurisdiction of the Québec courts, since the child was now domiciled in Ontario.

The Superior Court of Québec sided with M.P.: by living in Ontario with her child, L.J. is complying with the 2012 Québec judgment, and is thereby continuing to submit to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Québec with respect to M.P.’s access rights.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec disagreed: the legislative framework in Québec is clear that the domicile of the child determines jurisdiction. As such, since the child now lives in Ontario with L.J., Ontario authorities have jurisdiction.


Wendy Eileen McQuaid v. Government of Prince Edward Island, Scott Cameron, Steven O'Brien, C. Emerson Brooks, Barry Carruthers, Ivar Mendez, William Stanish, Keith Costello, Peter Gorman, Eric Massicotte, Regional Health Authority "B", doing business under the name and style of Horizon Health Network and The Moncton Hospital, a facility administered by Horizon Health Network (P.E.I.)

Courts – Judges – Impartiality – Reasonable apprehension of bias

In April 1999, Ms. McQuaid, a registered nurse, suffered a workplace injury. In 2004, Ms. McQuaid filed a claim with the Workers’ Compensation Board of Prince Edward Island (“WCB”). The claim for benefits was ultimately denied. Mr. John K. Mitchell, as he then was, acted for the WCB in the appeal before the WCB. In 2005, Ms. McQuaid suffered a second workplace injury. The essence of the medical advice she received was that she would not benefit from surgical intervention. In 2008, she attended at the Mayo Clinic and an orthopedic surgeon successfully operated on Ms. McQuaid and her symptoms substantially improved. In October 2008, Ms. McQuaid commenced an action against 25 defendants including the respondent physicians, the Government of Prince Edward Island and the Moncton Hospital. The respondent physicians’ motion for summary judgment was granted. Mitchell J.A. is a member of the Court of Appeal that heard Ms. McQuaid’s appeal.The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment order. The Court of Appeal allowed the cross-appeal on the statutory limitation period issue and dismissed Ms. McQuaid’s action against Doctors Cameron, Brooks, Mendez, Stanish, Costello, and Gorman and barred any action against Dr. O’Brien in relation to matters prior to October 23, 2006.


University Hill Holdings Inc. (Formerly 589918 B.C. Ltd.), Pacific Cascadia Capital Corp., Glenelg Productions (2000) Corporation, in its Capacity as Designated Partner of Glenelg 2000-2 Master Limited Partnership, Sentinel Hill Productions (1999) Corporation, in its Capacity as Designated Partner of Sentinel Hill No. 29 Limited Partnership, Sentinel Hill Productions (1999) Corporation, in its Capacity as Designated Partner of Sentinel Hill No. 30 Limited Partnership, Sentinel Hill Productions (1999) Corporation, in its Capacity as Designated Partner of Sentinel Hill No. 31 Limited Partnership, Sentinel Hill Productions III Corporation, in its Capacity as Designated Partner of Sentinel Hill No. 116 Limited Partnership, Sentinel Hill Productions III Corporation, in its Capacity as Designated Partner of Sentinel Hill No. 155 Limited Partnership, Sentinel Hill Productions III Corporation, in its Capacity as Designated Partner of Sentinel Hill No. 178 Limited Partnership v. Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.)

Taxation – Settlement agreement – Validity

The nine applicants are part of a larger group involved in film production. They are connected to two of four master limited partnerships (MLPs) with whom a settlement agreement was reached by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). During an audit, CRA had signalled its concern that certain deductions claimed along with expenses were “unreasonable”, pursuant to s. 67 of the ITA . The agreement set out the tax treatment of claimed expenses for management fees, producer referral fees and financing fees. The agreement used dollar amounts for Sentinel Hill MLP to indicate which expenses would be allowed and disallowed, with a common understanding that CRA would make determinations of the income or loss of the other MLPs and their investors on a “basis consistent with” the treatment of Sentinel Hill MLP. There was no right of objection or appeal. When the Minister interpreted the agreement for the reassessment and determinations of the applicants, they did not agree on how the agreement should be applied to them. The applicants appealed the reassessments and determinations made under the ITA for the 2000 and 2001 taxation years. The Tax Court of Canada held that the settlement agreement was a valid, binding and principled agreement pursuant to the ITA and that CRA’s reassessments and determinations were in accordance that agreement. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.


Daniel Christopher Scott, Mark Douglas Campbell, Gavin Michael David Flett, Kevin Albert Matthew Berry, Bradley Darren Quast and Aaron Michael Bedard v. Attorney General of Canada (B.C.)

Charter of Rights – Right to equality – Right to liberty

The applicants are members or former members of the Canadian Forces who suffered injuries in the course of their duties. They commenced an action, claiming that the compensation they receive under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Compensation Act, S.C. 2005, c. 21 is inadequate, and violates a “social covenant” that is binding on the federal government by virtue of the doctrine of honour of the Crown. The applicants contend that the benefits now provided are inferior to those provided under the previous legislation. They allege, inter alia, that Canada acted unconstitutionally by creating an inadequate system of compensation for its members who have suffered injuries in the course of their military services. They also claim that the compensation scheme violates equality rights under s. 15 of the Charter and rights to life, liberty, and security of the person under s. 7 . The respondent, Attorney General, brought an application to have the notice of claim struck as disclosing no cause of action. The chambers judge granted the motion in part, striking some of the applicants’ claims. On the respondent’s appeal, the notice of claim was struck in its entirety.


Carolyn Hagan and 6379800 Canada Inc. v. Muffy Eames Van Nostrand (Que.)

Civil procedure – Declinatory exception – Natural justice

The applicant Carolyn Hagan met the respondent Muffy Eames Van Nostrand around 2002. The central issue before the Superior Court of Québec was whether Ms. Van Nostrand had provided Ms. Hagan with sums of money (over $1.8 million) in the years that followed. The trial judge found that she had, and ordered Ms. Hagan to reimburse Ms. Van Nostrand. Ms. Hagan’s cross-application was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal of Quebec, in a unanimous judgment, dismissed the appeal.


Gerald Lane v. Robert Paul Pierce - and between - Gerald Lane v. BMW Canada Inc., Vishal Raj Naiker (B.C.)

Torts – Motor vehicles – Liability – Damages

Gerald Lane is a qualified carpenter who was injured in three motor vehicle accidents. He has been unable to work at that occupation as a result of injuries suffered in all three successive accidents. The accidents occurred on July 7, 2008, March 13, 2010 and March 9, 2012. He brought separate actions seeking damages for personal injuries arising from each of the accidents. The three actions were tried together. It was agreed that Mr. Lane suffered his most serious physical injuries in the second accident. The defendants in the first and third accidents (Lane v. Pierce and Lane v. BMW Canada Inc., et al) admitted liability to Mr. Lane. The defendant in the second accident denied liability and submitted that Mr. Lane was solely responsible for that accident. At the time of the trial, Mr. Lane continued to suffer symptoms from the second and third accidents. It was therefore necessary for the trial judge to determine liability in the second accident and then to determine which of his injuries were attributable to which accident in order to assess quantum and allocation of damages.

The B.C. Supreme Court dismissed the action in respect of the second accident for lack of liability. As liability had been admitted in the actions relating to the first and third accidents, net damages were assessed at $150,000 and $60,000, respectively. The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Lane’s three appeals. Mr. Lane seeks leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s orders in respect of the second and third accidents: Lane v. Pierce; Lane v. BMW Canada Inc., et al.


Envirogun Ltd. and Clint Kimery v. Her Majesty the Queen (Sask.)

Environmental law – Offences – Defences

The applicants, Envirogun Ltd. and Clint Kimery (sole shareholder and director of Envirogun) operated a hazardous waste transfer station from 1996 to 2010 on land located in the Rural Municipality of Sherwood. The business consisted of collection, containment, storage and treatment of hazardous waste, including used oil, used antifreeze and auto body waste.

The Minister of Environment issued an environmental protection order (“EPO”) pursuant to s. 47 of The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002, SS 2002, c. E-10.21 (since repealed) (“EMPA”) to both Envirogun and Clint Kimery. They did not comply with the Ministerial direction set forth in the EPO and were charged with failing to comply with a ministerial order contrary to ss. 74(1)(c) and 74(2) of EMPA.

The trial judge found a collateral challenge to the basis and justification of the EPO is not available. The trial judge declined to accept the applicants’ due diligence and other defences and convicted both parties of the offence charged. The appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed and the matter of the summary conviction against the trial decision was ordered to be remitted to the Court of Queen’s Bench for consideration of issues not addressed by the appeal judge. It found the EPO was not subject to a collateral attack.


Rand Tyler Stevenson v. Her Majesty the Queen (Alta.)

Securities – Legislation – Interpretation

Rand Tyler Stevenson was charged with a number of offences under the Securities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-4, arising out of the raising of over a million dollars from the public through “Loan Agreements”. The lenders generally had a consistent understanding of the reason the funds were required: Mr. Stevenson had met an individual from the Philippines who was the sole beneficiary of a large estate ranging in value from millions to billions of dollars left to him by his aunt, who apparently accumulated the wealth because of her position in the government or employ of former Philippine dictator, Ferdinand Marcos. Mr. Stevenson was purportedly helping the beneficiary probate the estate and gain access to the assets. In exchange for their financing the associated costs of this project, Mr. Stevenson and his company were to share their portion of the estate proceeds with the lenders in the amounts set out in their Loan Agreements, which ranged from four to two hundred times their investment. None of the lenders received any returns on their investments, nor were their principal loan amounts returned to them.

The Provincial Court trial judge dismissed all charges against Mr. Stevenson, finding the “Loan Agreements” did not constitute “securities” under the Act. The Crown’s appeal was allowed by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, which entered convictions against Mr. Stevenson. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Stevenson’s appeal, finding the interpretation of the summary conviction appeal court judge was correct and the agreements were “clearly” within the definition of “securities” in the Securities Act.


Sylvain Larocque v. Jody Wilson-Raybould, Marc Mayrand and Claude Leduc (Que.)

Courts – Jurisdiction – Elections

In November 2015, Mr. Larocque filed an application with the Quebec Superior Court to contest an election under the Canada Elections Act . The Superior Court dismissed his application, finding that it was barred. Mr. Larocque appealed that decision directly to this Court.