SCC No. Case Name Province of Origin Keywords
39603 Dimitri Alexiou v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Criminal law — Evidence — Confidential informer privilege
39572 Guillaume Bourdeau c. Société des alcools du Québec QC Civil procedure — Class actions
39588 Mohamed Belmamoun, et al. c. Ville de Brossard QC Prescription — Defence — Class actions
39605 Viet Khanh Le v. Her Majesty the Queen BC Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility
39595 Robert John Wenkoff v. Ian Wagner, Administrator Pendente Lite of the Estate of the late Robert Rusin Wenkoff SK Contracts — Formation
39612 Marian L. Carroll v. Toronto-Dominion Bank c.o.b.TD Bank Group, et al. ON Civil procedure — Parties — Standing
39617 Orville Campbell v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict
39622 David Earle v. Her Majesty the Queen ON Criminal law — Appeal — Procedure
39604 Marguerite Mary (Margaret) Buck, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, et al. FederalCourt Aboriginal law — Land claims — Treaty rights
39623 Her Majesty the Queen v. Terrell Ochrym ON Criminal law — Offences — Elements of offences
39607 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, et al. v. Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Inc., et al. ON Courts — Freedom of expression
39611 Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, Inc., et al. v. Trent University ON Courts — Freedom of expression
Dimitri Alexiou v. Her Majesty the Queen(Ont.)
Criminal law — Evidence — Disclosure — Confidential informer privilege
A confidential informer’s tip led to a police investigation that resulted in multiple arrests and the seizure of drugs worth millions of dollars. An in‑camera, ex‑parte hearing was held to determine whether the confidential informant acted as a police agent or a material witness and whether confidential informer privilege should be pierced. The applications judge held the confidential informant was neither a police agent nor a material witness and privilege applied. The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed. The applicant was convicted for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal.
Guillaume Bourdeau v. Société des alcools du Québec(Que.)
The applicant, Guillaume Bourdeau, filed an application for authorization to institute a class action against the respondent, the Société des alcools du Québec (SAQ), a joint stock company created by statute of the province of Quebec whose primary mission is to trade in alcoholic beverages. Mr. Bourdeau had been purchasing alcoholic products from the SAQ and from the Liquor Control Board of Ontario since 2009. He alleged that he had observed what he considered to be a significant difference in prices. He alleged in particular in his application for authorization that the SAQ was purchasing bulk wine from producers outside Quebec that it was, because of the wine’s poor quality, modifying in a laboratory through the use of additives. According to Mr. Bourdeau, sale prices in SAQ outlets were as a result inflated in relation to the cost of acquisition, and the labels affixed to wine bottles suggested that the product came from the producer, which was not the case. Mr. Bourdeau raised two legal bases for his action. The first was that the sale prices for the products in question were lesionary under s. 8 of the Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P‑40.1 (CPA), and art. 1437 of the Civil Code of Québec. The second was that the SAQ’s failure to provide more complete information on the labels of the products in question was an unlawful practice under ss. 219 and 228 of the CPA. The Superior Court dismissed the application for authorization to institute a class action, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Mohamed Belmamoun and Gaétan L'Heureux v. Ville de Brossard(Que.)
The applicants, Mohamed Belmamoun and Gaétan L’Heureux, live on Chemin des Prairies in the territory of the respondent, Ville de Brossard. On August 12, 2013, they filed an application for authorization to institute a class action against Ville de Brossard and Ville de Longueuil in which they alleged, in particular, that serious neighbourhood disturbances had resulted from the significant expansion of a commercial district in the territory of those municipalities that had had the effect of transforming automobile traffic patterns near the applicants’ homes. After being dismissed by the authorization judge (Belmamoun v. Brossard (Ville de), 2015 QCCS 2913), the application for authorization to institute a class action was ultimately granted by the Court of Appeal in January 2017 (Belmamoun v. Ville de Brossard, 2017 QCCA 102), but only against Ville de Brossard (the town). In November 2018, the town gave written notice that it intended to raise against the class action a defence of prescription based on s. 586 of the Cities and Towns Act, CQLR, c. C‑19, and, in the alternative, on art. 2925 of the Civil Code of Québec. After a case management conference in January 2019, the trial judge decided to split the proceeding in order to deal first, and separately, with the issue of prescription of the class action before dealing with the rest of the case. The Superior Court held that the town’s prescription defence was made out in part. The Court of Appeal allowed the town’s appeal and dismissed the applicants’ incidental appeal.
Viet Khanh Le v. Her Majesty the Queen(B.C.)
Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility
The RCMP commenced an investigation into a suspected marihuana grow operation on a seven‑acre farm property. Investigations, however, disclosed that four individuals (including the applicant Mr. Le) held licences to produce marihuana at the property for their personal medical use under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001‑227. On executing a search warrant, the police found that the barn was being used for a grow operation that was much larger than the total number of plants that were authorized. Mr. Le was convicted on counts of producing and trafficking marihuana. His conviction appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Robert John Wenkoff v. Ian Wagner, Administrator Pendente Lite of the Estate of the late Robert Rusin Wenkoff(Sask.)
Contracts — Formation — Conditions precedent
A farmer died intestate with five daughters and one son. The son took the position that his father had entered into an oral agreement to sell the farm to him but died before a written agreement was executed. The son commenced an action seeking a declaration that the agreement was enforceable and obliging the estate to perform the terms of the agreement. The son applied for summary judgment. The applications judge dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
Civil procedure — Parties — Standing
The applicant, Ms. Carroll, was employed by the respondent, the Toronto‑Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”). She was responsible for the compliance of a group of TD Bank’s subsidiaries with legal and regulatory obligations relating to the management of mutual funds. In that capacity, Ms. Carroll claims to have exposed regulatory non‑compliance and breaches of mutual fund trusts by TD Bank’s subsidiaries. She has made whistleblower complaints to TD Bank officials and to government regulators about the misconduct she allegedly uncovered. She also launched a civil proceeding against the respondents (collectively, “TD”), by way of an application that was structured to uncover and remedy the wrongdoing she alleges. TD brought a motion to dismiss Ms. Carroll’s application. The motion judge granted TD’s motion on the basis that Ms. Carroll did not have standing to bring the application. She found that Ms. Carroll was not a unitholder in the trust and had no financial interest in the outcome of the litigation; she lacked a direct personal interest in the litigation. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Carroll’s appeal.
Orville Campbell v. Her Majesty the Queen(Ont.)
Criminal law — Appeals — Unreasonable verdict
The applicant, Orville Campbell, and his friend Stanton David were together when Mr. David fatally shot the victim. The Crown alleged that Mr. Campbell passed the gun to Mr. David and instructed him to kill the victim. After a trial by judge and jury, Messrs. Campbell and David were convicted of first‑degree murder. The Court of Appeal concluded that the verdict on first‑degree murder was unreasonable, and that there was no error requiring a new trial on second‑degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but substituted a verdict of second‑degree murder and remitted the matter to the Superior Court for sentencing.
David Earle v. Her Majesty the Queen(Ont.)
Criminal law — Appeal — Procedure
Mr. Earle misled clients to believe that his company possessed precious metals and that purchases of precious metals were being made by the company in accordance with their orders. His company went bankrupt. Mr. Earle was charged with fraud over $5000 and money laundering. He was convicted on both counts. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment. The sentencing judge ordered a fine in lieu of forfeiture. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
Marguerite Mary (Margaret) Buck, Dorothy Anne Savard, Sylvia M. McGillis, Frances June McGillis, Florence Joyce L’Hirondelle, Marilyn McGillis v. Attorney General of Canada, Enoch Cree Nation(F.C.)
The Enoch Cree Nation is a First Nation that in 1942, leased a portion of its Reserve lands to Canada for use as a practice bombing range. In 2007, Enoch submitted a “specific claim”, in respect of its historic grievance, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and other breaches that the Crown improperly utilized Enoch’s Reserve lands without its consent and without regard to the damage that would be done to the Reserve lands. In 2013, Canada accepted this specific claim for negotiation, with the aim of the parties to negotiate a final settlement agreement of the specific claim. A proposed settlement agreement between the parties was reached in 2018 which was later accepted by a majority of the Band members in 2020. Pursuant to that agreement, Canada agreed to pay a monetary award to Enoch collectively, in exchange for releases regarding any future liability with respect to those reserve lands.
The applicants are members of the Enoch Cree Nation who held a Certificate of Possession (“CP”) for a portion of the lands that were subject to the proposed settlement agreement. They wished to deal with the Minister directly regarding the legal obligations of the Crown to the CP holders such as themselves. The Crown’s position was that its negotiations with Enoch were confidential and subject to settlement privilege. The applicants eventually commenced an action in Federal Court against the Crown seeking damages, alleging ongoing trespass caused by alleged munitions scraps on the lands held under the CP. The applicants filed a motion in seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Minister from signing the settlement agreement. The Chambers Judge held that the Federal Court was without jurisdiction to grant an injunction in an action against the Crown. After the Minister signed the settlement agreement, the Federal Court of Appeal granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.
Her Majesty the Queen v. Terrell Ochrym(Ont.)
Criminal law — Offences — Elements of offences
A complainant and her romantic partner solicited the assistance of Mr. Ochrym in a scheme to provide her sexual services for consideration in motels. Mr. Ochrym drove the complainant from her home to the motel, brought her to the motel room using back entrances, and left. He brought her food or necessities when asked. He either gave his phone to the complainant’s partner to post ads online or posted ads online himself. He was convicted of procuring another person to provide sexual services for consideration and of advertising sexual services for consideration. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Charlsie Agro, Kathleen Coughlin, Eric Szeto v. Subway Franchise Systems of Canada Inc., Subway IP Inc., Doctors Associates Inc.(Ont.)
Courts — Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate — Freedom of expression
In its Marketplace television program, online media report and Twitter posts to the public, the applicants (“CBC”) reported that only approximately 50% of the DNA in Subway chicken was chicken DNA. The investigative report compared the contents of chicken sandwiches sold by five fast food chains in Canada. The percentage of chicken reported to be in the Subway sandwiches was substantially below those sold by the other chains. The report was based on test samples conducted by Trent University’s Natural Resources DNA Profiling & Forensic Centre (“Trent”). The respondents (“Subway”) brought an action for defamation against CBC and Trent, and also brought an action in negligence against Trent.
CBC and Trent brought motions to dismiss under s. 137.1 of the CJA, on the basis that the lawsuits were strategically aimed at discouraging freedom of expression on a matter of public interest. CBC sought to dismiss Subway’s defamation action against it, whereas Trent only sought to dismiss the respondents’ claim in negligence. A motion judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the CBC’s motion and dismissed the defamation action against CBC, but dismissed Trent’s motion and allowed the negligence action against Trent to proceed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Subway’s appeal against CBC, set aside the lower court decision, and allowed the defamation action against CBC to continue. In a separate appeal, the appellate court allowed Trent’s appeal and dismissed Subway’s action in negligence against Trent.
Subway Franchise Systems of Canada, Inc., Subway IP Inc., Doctors Associates Inc. v. Trent University(Ont.)
Courts — Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate — Freedom of expression
In its Marketplace television program, online media report and Twitter posts to the public, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC”) reported that only approximately 50% of the DNA in Subway chicken was chicken DNA. The investigative report compared the contents of chicken sandwiches sold by five fast food chains in Canada. The percentage of chicken reported to be in Subway sandwiches was substantially below those sold by the other chains. The report was based on test samples conducted by the respondent Trent University’s Natural Resources DNA Profiling & Forensic Centre (“Trent”).
The applicants (“Subway”) brought an action for defamation against the CBC and Trent and an action in negligence against Trent. CBC and Trent each brought a motion to dismiss under s. 137.1 of the CJA on the basis that the lawsuits were strategically aimed at discouraging freedom of expression on a matter of public interest. CBC sought to dismiss the applicants’ defamation action against it, while Trent only sought to dismiss Subway’s claim in negligence. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted CBC’s motion and dismissed the action against CBC, but dismissed Trent’s motion and allowed the negligence action against it to proceed. In two separate appeals, the Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Subway’s appeal against the CBC, and allowed Trent’s appeal against Subway. The court granted Trent’s s. 137.1 motion and dismissed Subway’s action in negligence against it. Subway’s defamation action against Trent can continue.