36311   S.J. v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law – Failing to provide the necessaries of life

The applicant was convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to a child in necessitous circumstances contrary to s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code. The conviction appeal was dismissed.

36350    H. Kenneth MacLennan v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Transportation

Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Discrimination based on age — Judicial review

The applicant challenged the regulations under the Highway Traffic Act with respect to the biennial testing of drivers over the age of 80, as discriminatory and contrary to s. 15 of the Charter. The application before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal was dismissed. The application for judicial review and constitutional challenge was dismissed by the Superior Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without reasons. 

36307   Angel Sue Larkman v. Attorney General of Canada

Aboriginal law — Indian Registrar — Jurisdiction — Enfranchisement of Indians

In 1985, the Indian Act was amended to allow those who had lost their Indian status for various reasons to re-register as Indians. Ms. Larkman’s grandmother, Laura Flood, was enfranchised in 1952, and was removed from the Register as a result. She later claimed that her enfranchisement had not been voluntary and applied for re-registration under s. 6(1)(a) and (d). Section 6(1)(a), would have resulted in registration as if she had never been enfranchised, and Ms. Larkman and her mother would have also been able to register, on meeting certain conditions. Under s. 6(1)(d) allows re-registration following voluntary enfranchisement, but would only allow Ms. Larkman’s mother to register, not Ms. Larkman. The Registrar accepted Ms. Flood’s application and re-registered her under s. 6(1)(d), leaving Ms. Larkman without the ability to register. Ms. Larkman (then Angel Etches), her mother and Ms. Flood appealed to the Registrar, seeking registration pursuant to s. 6(1)(a). When the Registrar refused, they appealed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, seeking to have Ms. Flood registered under s. 6(1)(a). It allowed the appeal and ordered the Registrar to register all three women under s. 6(1)(a): Etches v. Canada (2008), 89 O.R. (3d) 599. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that only the federal courts had jurisdiction to invalidate and Order in Council. It allowed the appeal and reinstated the Registrar’s refusal to register the three women: 2009 ONCA 182. Leave to appeal that decision to this Court was denied: S.C.C. File No. 33140. Ms. Larkman then turned to the Court of Appeal, applying for judicial review of the Order in Council. The Federal Court reassessed the facts and found that Ms. Flood had been voluntarily enfranchised. It denied judicial review. A majority of the Federal Court of Appeal denied an appeal.

36308   Association des médecins résidents de Québec v. Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, Jacques E. Leclerc, Jean Alain Corbeil, in his capacity as grievance arbitrator 

- and between -
       Association des médecins résidents de Québec v. Jacques E. Leclerc, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec, Jean Alain Corbeil, in his capacity as grievance arbitrator

Labour relations – Grievance – Arbitration

On November 28, 2011, Jean Alain Corbeil made an arbitration award allowing a grievance filed by the applicant on behalf of Dr. Peter Abou-Jaoudé, an internist, alleging that he had been psychologically harassed by Dr. Jacques E. Leclerc. The arbitrator also found that the employer, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (“CHUQ”), had breached its obligation to stop the harassment by failing to initiate an administrative investigation. In the same arbitration award, the arbitrator dismissed a second grievance by Dr. Peter Abou-Jaoudé alleging that he had been psychologically harassed by two other physicians, Dr. François Thuot and Dr. Richard Buissières. CHUQ and Dr. Jacques E. Leclerc both brought a motion for judicial review of the arbitration award. The Quebec Superior Court allowed the respondents’ motions for judicial review. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals.

36356   Bradley Reckless v. Bank of Montreal

Commercial law – Financial institutions

The respondent, Bank of Montreal brought an action against Mr. Reckless to obtain repayment of the outstanding balance on his credit card with the Bank. Mr. Reckless relied upon a document that he sent to the Bank entitled “Accord and Satisfaction” and the Bank’s subsequent acceptance of a payment from him to defend the action and he also filed a counterclaim. The Bank moved for summary judgment. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the respondent awarded $44,178.26 against applicant on motion for summary judgment and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

36341   Sweda Farms Ltd., Best Choice Eggs Ltd. and Tilia Transport Inc. v. Burnbrae Farms Limited, Burnbrae Holdings Inc. and Maple Lynn Foods Limited

Summary judgments — Motion to tender fresh evidence


The applicants brought an action against the respondents claiming they conspired to sabotage its business. There were multiple allegations in the statement of claim, including breach of contract; libel; conspiracy and intentional interference with economic relations.

The respondents’ motion for summary judgment was granted. On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ motion for leave to tender fresh evidence and also dismissed the appeal from the order for summary judgment. 

36329   Jessy Domond v. CARRA arbitration tribunal

Administrative law – Appeals

The applicant retired on May 1, 2012.  The following September 19, she filed an application for the redemption of service.  The application was denied first by the redemption section and then by the reexamination committee.  The applicant appealed the reexamination committee’s decision to the arbitration tribunal.  To justify the fact that she had filed her application for redemption in September 2012, she alleged that she had been harassed by her brother‑in‑law for nearly 30 years and that this had caused her to lose dozens of jobs.  The arbitration tribunal dismissed her appeal, finding that, since she was no longer an employee at the time she filed her application, she was not entitled to file it.  The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the applicant’s motion for judicial review of the arbitration award and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion for leave to appeal.

36342    Robert Pammett v. Her Majesty the Queen

Criminal law – Appeals – Evidence

The applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. The Crown applied for forfeiture of his property, including the residence within which the trafficking occurred and where cocaine was hidden. The application for forfeiture of property was allowed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36265   Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission v. Douglas Allen, Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division

Workers’ Compensation – Pension Replacement Benefit – Judicial review

In 1996, Mr. Allen, respondent, injured himself at his place of work and, as a result, he received extended earnings loss (“EEL”) benefits. His EEL benefits ceased in 2009 when he turned 65 and became eligible for and received the pension replacement benefit (“PRB”) provided for by s. 75(1) of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. In Mr. Allen’s case, the PRB was calculated by the applicant Commission using a maximum assessable earnings cap. Mr. Allen challenged the assessment, arguing that s. 75(1) does not permit the application of a cap, and that he was entitled to a PRB calculated according to his actual loss. The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Review Division upheld the Commission’s assessment. On judicial review, Mr. Allen successfully argued that the Commission and Review Division decisions were unreasonable. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the applications judge correctly applied the deferential reasonableness standard of judicial review and correctly considered the appropriate principles of statutory interpretation in deciding that the Commission and Review Division decisions were unreasonable because they adopted an interpretation which the words of the statute in proper context could not bear.

36408    J.C.B. v. H.J.C., A.L.C.

Family law – Parental authority – Guardianship

H.J.C. and A.L.C. were married in July of 1999 and separated in March, 2007. They have two sons. The eldest is sixteen and resided with his father and paternal grandparents from the time of the separation. The younger son, C.C., who is nine, lived with his mother. In 2008, A.L.C. began living in a common law relationship with the applicant. H.J.C. had access to C.C. on alternate weekends with extended visits in the summer. In February 2013, due to the conflict that had arisen between her and the applicant, A.L.C. asked the father to take C.C. to live with him. The applicant and A.L.C. ended their common law relationship and he obtained an order in March, 2013 declaring him to be in loco parentis to C.C. The applicant then sought to be appointed guardian with sole parenting. 
The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta dismissed the applicant’s motion for guardianship of ex-spouse’s son and granted interim summer access. The Court of Appeal of Alberta dismissed the applicant’s appeals.

36259    Lyrtech RD Inc. v. Her Majesty the Queen

Income tax – Assessments – Corporations – De facto control

Lyrtech Inc. has been a public corporation listed on a stock exchange (s. 89(1) of the Income Tax Act(“Act”)) since 2000. Between 2000 and 2004, it was unable to claim federal investment tax credits for its scientific research and experimental development (“SR&ED”) qualified expenditures because it was in a loss position. In 2005, it restructured and transferred its SR&ED activities to the applicant, Lyrtech RD Inc.

For the 2005 to 2007 taxation years, the applicant, which claimed to qualify as a “Canadian‑controlled private corporation” under s. 125(7)(a) of the Act, claimed refundable tax credits under s. 127.1(1) and a 15% addition to the investment tax credit under s. 127(10.1), for a total of $1,790,582.

Since the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) did not consider the applicant a qualifying corporation within the meaning of s. 127.1(2), it denied the credits and refunds. The CRA found that the applicant was “controlled, directly or indirectly in any manner whatever”, by Lyrtech. According to the CRA, Lyrtech exerted over the applicant “any direct or indirect influence that . . . result[s] in control in fact” of the applicant (s. 256(5.1)). As a result, the applicant could not be considered a “Canadian‑controlled private corporation” and could not receive the refunds.

The applicant appealed the assessments but was unsuccessful. The applicant’s appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal was dismissed.

36390    Her Majesty the Queen v. A.C.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Criminal law – s. 11(b)

The respondent was charged in January, 2011 with a number of offences. The trial commenced in July 2013, but was adjourned to October. In the intervening period, a motion for a mistrial was granted and the trial judge recused herself from the case. Then, it was adjourned to October 22, 2013 to set a new date for trial. The dates of April 15, 16 and 17, 2014 were set on consent, based on the reported first availability of defence counsel for that length of trial. The respondent successfully brought an application for a stay of the charges on the basis of undue delay, contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

36447   Steven Tonner v. Real Estate Council of Ontario, Ontario Real Estate Association

Charter of Rights – Fundamental justice – Right to equality

In 2006, an order was made prohibiting the applicant from instituting further proceedings without leave of the court and staying all previous orders made. This decision was upheld on appeal. The applicant applied for an extension of time and for a review of the appellate order. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the applicant’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion to review order of Rouleau J.

36376    Donna Noble v. Her Majesty the Queen

Civil procedure — Appeals

In May 2013, the applicant filed two notices of appeal in the Tax Court of Canada. The respondent moved to have those notices of appeal struck on the ground that neither of them advanced a factual basis upon which a court could decide the case, disclosed a reasonable cause of action or put into issue any aspect of the assessment in question. 
The Tax Court of Canada granted a motion to quash the two appeals filed by applicant. The Federal Court of Appeal granted a motion to quash the applicant’s appeal.

36357   Van-Than Nguyen v. Ace INA Insurance

Contracts — Accident insurance contract

In December 2011, the applicant injured his right hand using a saw at his home. He had to have surgery. A few days later, he filed a claim with his insurer, the respondent. His accident insurance contract provided that he was entitled to $125,000 in compensation for total and irrecoverable loss of function in a hand.

In January 2012, the respondent informed the applicant that the insurance contract provided for coverage for loss of use of a hand only where there was a loss of function lasting 12 months. The respondent then told the applicant that, 12 months after the date of the injury, it would ask his attending physician to provide up‑to‑date medical information so it could make a decision on the applicant’s eligibility for benefits for loss of use of a hand.

The next month, the applicant brought an action claiming $1,276,320 from the respondent. His formal notice claimed that the respondent’s conduct was improper and alleged bad faith by the respondent. The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the action. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal