Dismissed (6)

Constitutional Law: Telecommunications; Division of Powers 

Madysta Télécom ltée v. Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail2020 QCCA 183 (39105)
The Applicant, Madysta Télécom ltée, was a company specializing in installing, activating and maintaining the equipment required to operate cellular networks. Its customers are four companies that all fall within federal jurisdiction over telecommunications. In January 2014, the Respondent, the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, charged Madysta Télécom, as the principal contractor on a construction site, with not properly shoring the banks of an excavation, contrary to s. 3.15.3(1) of the Safety Code for the Construction Industry and s. 236 of the Act respecting occupational health and safety. Madysta Télécom admitted the elements of the offence but argued it was a federal undertaking by virtue of derivative jurisdiction because the work it did for its customers was integrated with the functioning and operations of federal telecommunications undertakings. As a result, it argued, the provisions establishing the offence with which it was charged were constitutionally inapplicable. The Court of Québec declared the provisions in question to be constitutionally inapplicable and acquitted Madysta Télécom of the offence under the Safety Code for the Construction Industry. The Québec Superior Court allowed the appeal and convicted Madysta Télécom of the offence. The C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Criminal Law: Building Surveillance Permission 

Mai v. R., 2019 ONCA 942 (39067)
Police surveillance during a large‑scale investigation into suspected gang activity included unauthorised entries into condominium buildings’ parking garages, lobbies, elevators and hallways. Once a condominium unit was associated with a suspect, police obtained permission for further entries from property managers or condominium boards. The police installed hidden cameras in a few buildings, including the elevator and hallway area on the floor of Mr. Mai’s condominium unit, with permission from the condominium board obtained through the building’s property manager. Surveillance occurred before an authorization was obtained. Police arrested a large number of individuals for numerous offences in furtherance of criminal organizations. The trial judge dismissed pre‑trial motions to exclude evidence based on alleged breaches of s. 8 of the Charter. Mr. Mai, Mr. Tang, Mr. Yu and Mr. Saccoccia were convicted of offences related to drug trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization and possession of proceeds of crime. The C.A. dismissed the appeals. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Jury Instructions; After the Fact Conduct 

R. v. Maestrello2019 ONCA 952 (39053)
The Respondent’s convictions arose out of a drug rip. The victims were two large‑scale marijuana dealers. The victims were shot dead shortly after their arrival at a remote location. A short time later, Mr. Paul was shot and survived. Four individuals were involved in the drug transaction from the sellers’ side — the Respondent, Mr. Boyle, Mr. Belair, and Mr. Paul. The post‑offence conduct evidence related to the disposal of the bag with the guns and other items in the river, and the burning of the clothes at the farm of Mr. Belair’s sister. After a trial by judge and jury, the Respondent was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, and one count of attempted murder while using a firearm. The C.A. held the errors made by the trial judge in instructing the jury, particularly on the issue of the after‑the‑fact conduct, are sufficiently serious these verdicts cannot stand. The C.A. allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response to the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Sexual Abuse 

A.L. v. R., 2020 BCCA 18 (39103)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of historical sexual abuse. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family Law: Corporations 

Quantiam Technologies Inc. v. Aubin2020 ABCA 13 (39037)
Ms. Aubin and Dr. Petrone married in 1993 and have three children, the oldest of whom is a dependent adult and living with Ms. Aubin. In 1998, Dr. Petrone founded Quantiam Technologies Inc., a privately held corporation, where he is director, chief executive officer and majority shareholder. In 2002, Ms. Aubin, who was also was a director of Quantiam, left her employment and began working as a bookkeeper at Quantium. The parties separated in 2014. Their main unencumbered asset was Quantiam. Ms. Aubin brought an action for a division of matrimonial property and spousal support. Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta: Order requiring husband to pay retroactive and ongoing spousal support and equalization payment to wife; Orders securing wife’s entitlement to equalization payment, including security against corporate asset. C.A.: husband’s appeal dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs on a solicitor-client basis.”

Family Law: Corporations 

Petrone v. Aubin2020 ABCA 13 (39038)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs on a solicitor-client basis.”