Granted (1)

Criminal Law: Sexual Offences

R. v. R.V., 2019 ONCA 664 (38854)

There is a publication ban in this case, and on the party, in the context of an alleged unreasonable/inconsistent jury verdict. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”

Dismissed (4)

Banks: Fraudulent Cheques; Identity Theft

Gescoro inc. v. Rémillard, 2019 QCCA 973 (38790)

In December 2011, the Respondent notary Francis‑Pierre Rémillard was retained by Paul Turcot in relation to the purchase of property in Montréal belonging to Tanja Schudel. Mr. Rémillard prepared the act of sale and the act of hypothec that would secure a loan granted by the First National Financial Corporation, and these were signed on December 8, 2011. At that time, the amount of the loan was remitted to Mr. Rémillard, who issued a cheque to Ms. Schudel out of his trust account at the Bank of Montreal (BMO). On December 9, 2011, Ms. Schudel went to the BMO, had the cheque certified and then went to an outlet of the Applicant, Gescoro inc., to cash it. Before proceeding to cash the cheque, Gescoro contacted Mr. Rémillard on December 12, 2011, and he confirmed the authenticity of the cheque and the identity of Ms. Schudel. Gescoro then accepted the cheque endorsed by Ms. Schudel and made three cash payments to her between December 13 and 15, 2011. On or about December 15, 2011, Mr. Rémillard learned the transaction was fraudulent, because the real Mr. Turcot and Ms. Schudel had been victims of identity theft. The money Gescoro had paid to the false Ms. Schudel would not be recovered. The Respondent Stewart Title Guaranty Company then indemnified the First National Financial Corporation, was subrogated to its rights, and required Mr. Rémillard repay the amount of the cheque. Mr. Rémillard then asked that BMO return the cheque to Gescoro’s bank, which accepted it. The amount was remitted to BMO, which deposited it in Mr. Rémillard’s trust account. On February 13, 2014, the amount of the cheque was withdrawn from Gescoro’s account with the note [translation] “returned cheque”. On March 27, 2014, Gescoro instituted an action against Mr. Rémillard to recover the value of the cheque. The Superior Court dismissed the action for a claim, and the C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Stewart Title Guaranty Company.”

Contracts in Québec: Tenders

Transport en commun La Québécoise inc. v. Réseau de transport métropolitain, 2019 QCCA 752 (38709)

On March 23, 2018, the Respondent Réseau de transport métropolitain (RTM), a legal person established in the public interest that provided shared transportation services in greater Montréal, issued a public call for tenders. Its purpose was to identify a bus transportation service provider for the Le Richelain sector to serve the municipalities of Candiac, La Prairie and Saint‑Philippe. The Applicant, Transport en commun La Québécoise inc. (La Québécoise), submitted a bid on May 18, 2018. On May 24, 2018, the RTM issued a notice that the bid of the Respondent Transdev Québec inc. (Transdev) had been accepted because it had the lowest price. On June 21, 2018, the RTM’s board of directors passed a resolution authorizing the RTM to enter into the contract with Transdev on the condition that, within seven days of the date of the award, it receive a vehicle use plan that satisfied the requirements of the tender documents as amended on April 9, 2018. On July 4, 2018, the RTM sent the award notice to Transdev, and Transdev submitted its vehicle use plan on July 10 and 11, 2018. On July 23, 2018, the RTM issued a notice of technical compliance for Transdev’s bid. The contract was awarded to Transdev on October 22, 2018 and took effect on January 1, 2019. In parallel with these events, in June 2018, La Québécoise filed an application — subsequently re‑amended — in the Superior Court for a declaration the call for tenders was null and an order annulling every resolution passed by RTM concerning the call for tenders and awarding the contract to Transdev. The Superior Court dismissed La Québécoise’s application. The C.A. granted motions by Transdev and RTM to dismiss the appeal on the basis La Québécoise should have applied for leave to appeal the Superior Court’s decision, and it dismissed La Québécoise’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent,  Transdev Québec inc.”

Family Law: Special Needs Child Support

F.J.N. v. J.K., 2019 ABCA 305 (38859)

There is a publication ban in this case, and on the party, in the context of child support for a special-needs child. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Professions: Discipline; Police Evidence

Choong v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2019 ONCA (38818)

During an investigation the police collected evidence supporting an allegation the Applicant accessed, possessed, made available and/or distributed child pornography. The evidence led to criminal charges. The charges were eventually withdrawn because the Crown concluded the Applicant’s rights under s. 8 of the Charter had been violated and the evidence would not be admissible. The Respondent College subsequently commenced disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant and sought to rely on the evidence the police had collected. The Applicant brought a motion before the Discipline Committee of the College to exclude the evidence. It was agreed the police had violated the Applicant’s s. 8 Charter rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. The sole issue before the Discipline Committee was whether the evidence should be excluded from the disciplinary proceeding under s. 24(2). The majority of the Discipline Committee held the evidence was inadmissible and dismissed the allegations of professional misconduct, since without the evidence the College had no basis to discipline the Applicant. The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the decision of the Discipline Committee and returned the matter to the College for a new hearing before a different Discipline Committee panel, for the purpose of conducting the R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353 analysis and deciding the Applicant’s motion to exclude the evidence. The C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”