Granted (1)

Religious Institutions: Membership 

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada v. Aga2020 ONCA 10 (39094)
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada was an incorporated religious organization with a constitution and bylaws. A committee of members was appointed to investigate other members influenced by Protestant theology who began opposing the veneration of St. Mary. The committee set out findings and a recommendation to purge heretics in a report to the church’s Archbishop. The Archbishop implemented other discipline. Five members of the committee objected. They refused to cease objecting and their dispute with the Archbishop and the church’s High Priest culminated in their expulsions. The expelled members commenced an action for relief including declarations the decisions to expel them were null and void, their rights under s. 2(a) of the Charter were violated, and other relief including production of some records. The church applied for summary judgment dismissing the action. The motions judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the action. The C.A. allowed an appeal, set aside the summary judgment and ordered the case returned for trial. “The motions for leave to intervene by Evangelical Fellowship of Canada; and Association for Reformed Political Action, Canadian Council of Christian Charities and Christian Legal Fellowship (jointly) are dismissed, without prejudice to the right to file a motion for leave to intervene in the appeal. The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”

Dismissed (6)

Administrative Law in Québec: Victims of Crime 

Mabrouk v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al.2019 QCCA 2240 (39075)
The Applicant, Karim Mabrouk, suffered a psychological shock at the time of the attack at the great mosque of Québec on January 29, 2017. In February 2017, he filed a claim with Indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels (“IVAC”) for benefits under the Crime Victims Compensation Act because he had been psychologically unable to work and to lead a normal life since the incident. In March 2017, IVAC confirmed Mr. Mabrouk had suffered acute stress at the time of the attack and assigned a psychologist to him, but it denied him compensation. In May 2017, IVAC’s Review Board upheld that denial, stating Mr. Mabrouk was not eligible for compensation for his inability to work because he had not been employed at the time of the incident. In June 2017, Mr. Mabrouk contested the decisions made by IVAC and the Review Board before the Respondent Administrative Tribunal of Québec (“ATQ”). He also filed an application for precedence so his case would be entered [translation] “on the next roll for hearing” of the ATQ. On July 11, 2017, the ATQ dismissed the application for precedence. On October 10, 2017, Mr. Mabrouk filed an application for J.R. of the ATQ’s decision in order to compel the ATQ to hear his case on the merits as soon as possible. On February 19, 2018, the Superior Court dismissed his application. Mr. Mabrouk then appealed that decision to the C.A. On June 10, 2019, after Mr. Mabrouk’s application for leave to appeal was granted but before the appeal was heard, the ATQ heard his application on the merits. The ATQ dismissed the claim for benefits on the merits on August 20, 2019. (Mr. Mabrouk contested that new decision in the Superior Court, which dismissed his application for judicial review on January 8, 2020.) On December 16, 2019, the C.A. dismissed Mr. Mabrouk’s appeal from the Superior Court’s decision concerning the ATQ’s dismissal of the application for precedence on the ground the appeal was moot. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent Attorney General of Quebec.”

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault 

Vlaski v. R.2019 ONCA 927 (39098)
A complainant and Mr. Vlaski met in a bar. They went to his apartment and engaged in consensual kissing. The next morning, the complainant disclosed to a friend and to a co‑worker Mr. Vlaski had sexually assaulted her. Her co‑worker persuaded her to call the police. At trial, the complainant testified she was intoxicated but did not lack capacity to tell Mr. Vlaski she did not want to have sex. She alleged he sexually assaulted her. Mr. Vlaski admitted to consensual intercourse and denied the allegations of assaultive behaviour. The complainant’s prior consistent statements to her friend and co‑worker were admitted at trial. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice: conviction for sexual assault. C.A.: appeal dismissed. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Video-Recorded Witness Statements 

Weldekidan v. R., 2019 MBCA 109 (38984)
The accused, Mr. Weldekidan, allegedly shot three victims. While still recovering in hospital, the victims provided individual videotaped statements recounting their versions of the events. The victims were warned prior to being filmed their statements would be video‑recorded. Each victim agreed to provide a statement and acknowledged their understanding of the conditions verbally and in writing. In their individual statements, the three victims all identified Mr. Weldekidan, as the shooter. Following a voir dire on the admissibility of the video‑recorded statements — because two of the victims testified they did not have any memories of the shooting or of providing the video statements, and the third victim denied having any memory of the individual who shot him — the trial judge deemed the video statements inadmissible. The charges were dismissed and Mr. Weldekidan acquitted. The C.A. allowed the Crown’s appeal, overturned the acquittal, and ordered a new trial. “After hearing the parties on the leave application on June 12, 2020, the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family/Criminal Law: Harassment 

Y.Z. v. R., 2019 QCCA 1123 (39081)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of a conviction for criminal harassment. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Insurance Policy: Voidance for Non-Disclosure 
Schellenberg v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company2020 BCCA 22 (39089)
William Schellenberg and Linda Schellenberg owned residential property insured by Wawanesa under a standard homeowner’s policy renewed annually through a broker, Hub International. They added an outbuilding and advised Hub International. They did not advise their insurer or their broker when they increased electrical service to the outbuilding and when they converted the outbuilding into a licensed medical marijuana grow operation. In January 2014, there was a fire in the outbuilding. The Applicants claimed under the insurance policy. In May 2014, Wawanesa voided the policy as of February 1, 2011, for non‑disclosure of a material change. The Applicants commenced an action for damages. The trial judge dismissed the action. The C.A. dismissed an appeal. Should this case go to Canada’s highest court? “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Transportation: Maritime Shipment of Goods 

Elroumi v. Entrepot Canchi and CMA CGM2019 FCA 281 (39064)
The Applicants, Ms. Elroumi and 9147‑1425 Québec Inc., purchased goods to be shipped from China to Montréal, first by sea and then by rail. After the purchased goods had cleared customs, the Applicants were told they were damaged. The Applicants made a claim against the insurer and received partial compensation for their loss. The Applicants also issued a statement of claim against the vendors/shippers, the insurer, the transport agent and the land storage and transportation company, but initially against neither of the ocean carriers named on the bills of lading. Entrepot Canchi and CMA CGM each presented a motion for an order striking out, respectively, the Applicants’ claim against Entrepot Canchi, and Entrepot Canchi’s third party claim against CMA CGM. The Fed. Court granted Entrepot Canchi’s and CMA CGM’s motions, and struck out the Applicants’ claim against Entrepot Canchi and Entrepot Canchi’s third party claim against CMA CGM, with costs. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeal, with costs. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Entrepot Canchi.”