APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
Neil Craig Vezey Rooker v. Cindy Elise Rooker (Alta.)
Family law – Spousal support – Child support
The husband and wife have been married since 1989 and separated in 2010. They have two children, born in 1993 and 1996 who remain children of the marriage. The husband had been employed in the military but was diagnosed with certain disabilities. On account of his injuries, he receives non-taxable disability benefits each month. He receives additional income from both the military and third parties. The wife applied for retroactive and continuing child and spousal support. The husband objected to the inclusion of his disability benefits in his income for the purposes of calculating spousal and child support. The Court of Queen’s Bench held that the husband’s Veteran’s Affairs Canada non-taxable benefits were properly included in his income for purposes of calculating support. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
St. John’s International Airport Authority v. City of St. John’s (N.L.)
Constitutional law — Division of powers — Taxation
The Airport Authority appealed the City of St. John’s International Airport Authority taxation assessment for 2009 and 2010-12 to an assessment review commissioner, arguing that the assessments should have been much lower. The Commissioner rejected the testimony of expert evidence submitted by the Airport Authority noting multiple flaws in that evidence and accepted the evidence of the City’s expert, who had been employed to check the City’s methodology and the validity of the assessed value. The Commissioner found that the City expert had used appropriate methodology, but had not considered municipal taxation when he determined the capitalization rate for the property. The Commissioner applied a different capitalization rate and reached a new value estimate for the base years 2005 and 2008. The Commissioner recognized that, once the capitalization rate was adjusted, the value estimate was lower than the City appraiser’s estimate, but accepted that value based on the fact that that the expert was an experienced national and international airport valuator, and had been engaged by the City. The decision was appealed by the Airport Authority and cross-appealed by the City.
The trial judge substantially allowed the Airport Authority’s appeal and allowed the City’s appeal to the extent that the Commissioner had erred in law in proceeding on an incomplete evidentiary basis and valuation technique. She disallowed the City’s appeal with respect to the remedy sought. She vacated the decision and remitted the matter to the Commissioner. The Court of Appeal allowed the City’s appeal, vacated the Commissioner’s decision, and remitted the assessment of the matter to the Commissioner to deal with in accordance with its reasons.
Katherine Lin v. Ombudsman Ontario, Sue Haslam, Wendy Ray, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Fair Practices Commission, Elizabeth Witmer, Tom Irvine, Han Dong, Attorney General of Ontario, Social Justice Tribunals Ontario, Michael Gottheil, Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Human Rights Tribunal Ontario, Landlord and Tenant Board, Gobinder Randhawa, Claudette Leslie, Vincent Ching, IAVGO Community Legal Clinic, Mary Dinucci, Antony Singleton, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP-Toronto, Pamela Sidey, Law Society of Upper Canada, Bay College Enal Centre, Sam Alfasih, HSBC Canada, Gracie Pagayon, Royal Bank of Canada, Rui (Ray) Zhen, Jin Qing Cheng (Ont.)
Civil procedure – Whether the applicant has been harassed
Ms. Lin commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against various defendants. Several of the defendants requested that the Superior Court dismiss Ms. Lin’s action as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The Superior Court judge agreed that this was an appropriate case for the use of rule 2.1 and dismissed the action. The Divisional Court agreed with the Superior Court judge and dismissed Ms. Lin’s appeal. Her motion for leave to appeal the Divisional Court judgment to the Court of Appeal for Ontario was dismissed for delay.
Tanner Currie v. Attorney General of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen and Christopher Labreche (Ont.)
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Right to life, liberty and security of person
The respondent, Constable Labreche arrested the applicant, Mr. Currie for public intoxication and resisting arrest. The charges were later withdrawn.
Mr. Currie commenced a private prosecution against Constable Labreche, claiming he was assaulted while in police custody. A justice of the peace found that a prima facie case had been made out and issued process compelling Constable Labreche to attend to answer the charge of assault. The Crown then intervened to assume carriage of the prosecution.
Mr. Currie brought an application in the Superior Court of Justice to challenge the actions of the Crown in taking over the private prosecution. The application was dismissed finding that the Crown had lawful authority to intervene in the private prosecution and that Mr. Currie had failed to demonstrate an abuse of process or bias.
The Crown, on notice to Mr. Currie and in an attendance in the provincial court, withdrew the assault charge on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Mr. Currie then moved for an extension of time for leave to appeal the order dismissing his application. The motion was dismissed.
Mr. Currie brought a second application in the Superior Court of Justice seeking a declaration that s. 507.1 of the Criminal Code and s. 11(d) of the Crown Attorney’s Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.49 be declared unconstitutional and the Attorney General’s intervention in the matter be set aside. The application was dismissed in its entirety on the basis of issue estoppel.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Corneliu Prisecaru and Lidia Prisecaru v. Intact Insurance Company (Ont.)
Insurance — Property insurance — Applicants’ home damaged
The applicants’ home was damaged by fire when an explosion occurred at a neighbour’s property. The family was relocated to a hotel. The applicants brought an action against the respondent insurance company for damages under the insurance contract.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the claim against the insurance company. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Brent Chapman v. GPM Investment Management and Integrated Asset Management Corporation (Ont.)
Employment law – Constructive dismissal
The Applicant, Mr. Chapman brought an action against the Respondents, GPM Investment Management and Integrated Asset Management Corp. claiming damages amongst other things for constructive dismissal and breach of contract in the amount of $3,000,000; damages based on quantum meruit in the amount of $329,687 and in the alternative damages of $329,687 for unjust enrichment.
GPM is in the business of providing real estate management services. Its income, for the most part, is generated through operating fees. The Applicant was employed by GPM for a number of years as its chief executive officer and president and he was also a director of IAM which holds an ownership interest in GPM. As part of his remuneration, the Applicant was entitled to a bonus calculated on GPM’s profits. GPM planned to exclude from the calculation of its pretax income profit, the sale of lands that it had purchased several years earlier. The Applicant left his employment taking the position that GPM’s refusal to include the profit from the sale of the lands in the calculation of his bonus constituted constructive dismissal. GPM took the position that he had voluntarily resigned.
The trial judge found that GPM had breached the Applicant’s contract by not including the profits from the land transaction in the calculation of his bonus. The trial judge however found that the Applicant had not been constructively dismissed. The Applicant unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.