APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37268

Joseph Palazzo v. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada

(Que.)

Civil Procedure – Appeal – Prescription

The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent from 1968 to 2009. In 1980, the Applicant began selling life insurance and investment products of the Respondent until his retirement on May 1, 2009. During his employment as a sales representative, the Applicant was paid on a commission basis only.

While the Applicant was an employee of the Respondent, the Respondent modified the benefits plan offered to its employees and employees were given the choice to elect to remain in the so-called “Old Plan” or to join the “New Plan”. In the early 1990’s, the Applicant experienced disability periods during which he received income replacement indemnities. The Applicant claims that he is subject to the New Plan for purposes of these benefits, whereas the Respondent contends that he elected to remain in the Old Plan.

In 2011, the Applicant instituted an action against the Respondent, claiming: (i) income replacement indemnities which he had allegedly been deprived of due to the application of the Old Plan and the allegedly incorrect method and data used by the Respondent to calculate the Applicant’s earnings; and (ii) pension benefits which he has been allegedly deprived of since his retirement on May 1, 2009 due to the Respondent’s alleged failure to correctly annualize all of the Applicant’s earned commissions. The Superior Court of Quebec dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed the motion for an extension of time to file an appeal.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

37281

Bertrand Bouchard v. Labelle Marquis Inc.

(Que.)

Civil procedure – Bankruptcy and insolvency – Procedure

This case arose under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The Superior Court dismissed Bertrand Bouchard’s motion for a declaratory judgment and allowed in part the motion for directions brought by the trustee, Labelle Marquis. Having filed his appeal late, Mr. Bouchard applied for an extension of time to appeal the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Bouchard’s motion.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

37292

N.F. v. Attorney General of Quebec (Ministère de la solidarité sociale), Agence du revenu du Québec

(Que.)

Civil procedure ‒ Appeal – Motion to dismiss appeal

The Superior Court’s judgment allowed in part the motion brought by the applicant, who was seeking the cancellation of child support arrears, the homologation of an agreement entered into with the Agence du revenu du Québec as the collector of support payments, and the lifting of his passport suspension. The applicant’s former spouse acquiesced in the judgment on the support arrears, but the respondents opposed the application (and the acquiescence) for the period of 1999 to 2005. In support of that opposition, they relied on the legal subrogation resulting from what was then s. 111 of the Act respecting income support, employment assistance and social solidarity (“AISEASS”). The applicant’s former spouse and their children had received last resort financial assistance during the period in question. The Attorney General therefore asked that the applicant be ordered to pay the amount due to the Ministère de la Solidarité sociale. In the Court of Appeal, leave to appeal out of time was refused and the motion to dismiss the appeal was allowed.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the Agence du revenu du Québec.

37191

Merrill Kucher v. Kirk Brown

(B.C.)

Family law – Support – Child support

Ms. Kucher, the applicant, and Mr. Brown had a relationship for less than a year, which Mr. Brown terminated when Ms. Kutcher told him she was pregnant. His response was that he did not want the responsibility of a child at that time. He already had two daughters and Ms. Kucher had three sons. There was no further direct contact between the parties until the application for child support was made in 2013. The Provincial Court order awarded retroactive child support to Ms. Kucher in the amount of $70,320, being the sum of child support that the trial judge calculated would have been payable between 1995 and 2013 under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/97-175 in respect of the parties’ child, “C.K.” C.K. was almost 19 years old at the time of trial. Fisher J. set aside the retroactive child support order and ordered retroactive child support to no more than three years prior to October 23, 2013 (the date of both formal and effective notice) in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines; prospective support at $479 per month was ordered and the payment of education expenses. Costs were awarded to the respondent. The Court of Appeal dismissed the child support appeal from the decision of Fisher J. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for a stay of the costs awards.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed without costs.

37313

Cody Alan Legebokoff v. Her Majesty the Queen

(B.C.)

Charter – Criminal law – Appearance of unfairness

Mr. Legebokoff was charged with four counts for first degree murder. His defence counsel applied to change the venue of trial. Parrett J. dismissed the application. He did not release his reasons for dismissing the application until after Mr. Legebokoff was convicted. In his reasons dismissing the application, Parrett J. criticizes the manner in which defence counsel conducted the application. Mr. Legebokoff appealed from the convictions and argued that an appearance of trial unfairness arose because Parrett J. failed to express his opinion of defence counsel before trial. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

37346

Louis Gagné v. Noël et Associés LLP

(Que.)

Law of professions – Barristers and solicitors – Professional liability

Louis Gagné brought an action in professional liability against the law firm of Noël et Associés. Mr. Gagné argued that the firm had committed several faults in managing his defence against an action on loans. Noël et Associés contested Mr. Gagné’s action and argued that it had carried out its mandate competently and in the best interests of its client. The Superior Court dismissed the action in professional liability. The Court of Appeal allowed the motion to dismiss the appeal.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

37290

Angèle Roy v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada

(Que.)

Civil procedure – Appeal – Prescription

The applicant was a nurse at a Correctional Service of Canada health care centre. She also volunteered as regional union representative for the respondent. In that capacity, she had to deal with other union representatives, some of whom complained to the respondent in 2004 about her actions. At the respondent’s request, an investigation was conducted by a third party, who recommended that the applicant be dismissed. Instead, the respondent directed the applicant to improve the quality of her communications and to limit her involvement to institutions where there was no union representative in place.

The applicant did not challenge that decision by the respondent, which was communicated to her in October 2005, but she did try to obtain a copy of the investigation report, which she was given in 2009. She then made various unsuccessful efforts to obtain financial compensation from the respondent on the basis that she had been treated unfairly. On October 30, 2012, she brought an action against the respondent in the Superior Court, alleging, inter alia, a denial of justice and damage to her reputation as a result of the investigation and the reports subsequently produced. In response, the respondent argued that the applicant’s action was prescribed and claimed compensation from her equal to the fees and disbursements incurred to defend the action, which it considered abusive. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the Applicant’s application and allowed the respondent’s cross-application in part. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

37190

Mamadou Zoungrana v. Air Algérie

(Que.) (Civil) (By Leave)

Civil procedure – Class action – Authorization

On July 24, 2014, 108 passengers, including the applicant Mr. Zoungrana’s spouse and two sons, died in a plane crash during a flight with the respondent Air Algérie. Air Algérie’s liability for the passengers’ death was governed mainly by the Montréal Convention. It was common ground that only the successors of a group of 12 passengers, including Mr. Zoungrana, could bring an action before the Canadian courts under the Montréal Convention.

On June 30, 2015 in Quebec, Mr. Zoungrana filed an application for authorization to institute a class action on behalf of certain passengers and their successors, including certain persons who could not bring their individuals claims before the Quebec courts. Air Algérie opposed the authorization of the class action and brought a motion for declinatory exception based on art. 584 C.C.P.

The judge dismissed the application for declinatory exception as premature but found that, under Art. 33 of the Montréal Convention, the Canadian courts had no jurisdiction to hear the claims of most of the passengers that Mr. Zoungrana wanted to represent. The judge also refused to authorize the class action for the class made up of the successors of the 12 passengers who had a recourse in Canada, since it would not be difficult or impracticable to consolidate the claims into a single action in Canada. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no reasonable chance of success.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

37253

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, Raymond Lazzara, Deborah Anne Chamney and Humayoun Akhtar v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Attorney General of Canada

(Ont.)

Charter of Rights – Freedom of association – Right to collective bargaining

As part of the program that was implemented by the federal government to respond to the 2008 economic crisis, Parliament adopted the Expenditure Restraint Act, S.C. 2009, c. 2, s. 393 (“ERA”). Among other things, the ERA restricted wage increases to affected employees. At the time, a number of bargaining units represented by the applicant union were in the process of collective bargaining. Other units had reached agreements, but as a result of the adoption of the ERA, wage increases were rolled back to comply with the provisions in the legislation.

The applicants sought a declaration that the ERA was unconstitutional and of no force and effect as it limited the union members’ freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter. They also challenged the government’s conduct in collective bargaining, before and after the ERA’s enactment. They submitted that the government’s conduct and provisions in the ERA substantially interfered with their right to a meaningful collective bargaining process by interfering with bargaining on wages, overriding freely negotiated wage increases, capping wages during the restraint period, and preventing bargaining for catch-up after the restraint period. The application judge dismissed the application, finding that the associational rights of federal public servants under s. 2(d) of the Charter were not impermissibly limited by the government’s conduct in collective bargaining or provisions in the ERA. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

37254

John Gordon, Patricia Ducharme, Nick Stein, Chris Aylward, Darrell-Lee McKenzie and Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Attorney General of Canada

(Ont.)

Charter of Rights – Freedom of association – Right to collective bargaining

As part of the program that was implemented by the federal government to respond to the 2008 economic crisis, Parliament adopted the Expenditure Restraint Act, S.C. 2009, c. 2, s. 393 (“ERA”). Among other things, the ERA restricted wage increases to affected employees. At the time, a number of bargaining units represented by the applicant union were in the process of collective bargaining. Other units had reached agreements, but as a result of the adoption of the ERA, wage increases were rolled back to comply with the provisions in the legislation.

The applicants sought a declaration that the ERA was unconstitutional and of no force and effect as it limited the union members’ freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter. They also challenged the government’s conduct in collective bargaining, before and after the ERA’s enactment. They submitted that the government’s conduct and provisions in the ERA substantially interfered with their right to a meaningful collective bargaining process by interfering with bargaining on wages, overriding freely negotiated wage increases, capping wages during the restraint period, and preventing bargaining for catch-up after the restraint period. The application judge dismissed the application, finding that the associational rights of federal public servants under s. 2(d) of the Charter were not impermissibly limited by the government’s conduct in collective bargaining or provisions in the ERA. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

37141

The Municipal Corporation of the County of Bruce v. Stephen Campbell, Patti Campbell, Liam Campbell and Jordann Campbell, by their Litigation Guard, Patti Campbell

(Ont.)

Torts – Duty of care – Contributory negligence

The Municipal Corporation of the County of Bruce constructed a public park for people to ride on various trails and obstacles with their mountain bikes. In the presence of his family, Stephen Campbell fell while attempting to cross a constructed obstacle near the entrance of the park. He fractured his C6 vertebrae and was rendered quadriplegic. The Campbells brought an action against the municipality. The sole issue to be decided by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice was that of liability, and whether the municipality had breached its duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2 (“OLA”). The issue of damages was resolved on consent between the parties.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found the municipality liable for Mr. Campbell’s injury on the basis that it breached its duty of care owed to Mr. Campbell to ensure he was reasonably safe while in the park. The trial judge also found that Mr. Campbell was not contributorily negligent with respect to the accident. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the municipality’s appeal, finding the trial judge had made no reviewable errors.

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.