Dismissed (3)

Contracts: Interpretation 

Toronto Muslim Cemetery Corp. v. Muslim Green Cemeteries Corporation2020 ONCA 94 (39121)
The parties entered into a contract in 2014, pursuant to which Muslim Green Cemeteries Corporation was to develop and sell burial plots on part of Toronto Muslim Cemetery Corp.’s lands. They did not agree on the interpretation of the contract. Muslim Green Cemeteries Corporation applied for a ruling interpreting aspects of the contract. The applications judge issued declarations interpreting parts of the contract. The C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Criminal Law: Offences on Aircraft 

R. v. Aloise Hoch2019 QCCA 2182 (39073)
The Respondent, Aloise Hoch, a French citizen, was charged with sexual offences committed on an aircraft, on a flight from Paris to Montréal, and were therefore deemed to have been committed in Canada. Under s. 7(7) of the Criminal Code, the Attorney General of Canada’s consent to the proceedings had to be obtained not later than eight days after they were commenced, but the Attorney General failed to give it. The Applicant, the Crown, laid new charges after the error was noticed. At the commencement of his trial, the Respondent filed a motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging the laying of the new charges against him constituted an abuse of process. The Court of Québec granted the Respondent’s motion for a stay. The C.A. held instead the eight‑day time limit is mandatory and barred the Crown from laying new charges; rather than affirming the trial judge’s stay order, the C.A. allowed the appeal solely to declare the charges to be null. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Real Estate: Failure to Close; Damages 

Abstak Holdings Inc. v. Telsec Developments Ltd., 2020 ABCA 40 (39101)
In 2008, the parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale of 5 acres of land for the price of $1,175,000 per acre. Prior to the finalization of the agreement, Abstak sought to obtain a development permit for the land from the City of Calgary. The City refused Abstak’s development permit application. Abstak filed a notice of appeal of this decision. The day before the appeal was to be heard, Abstak withdrew its appeal. It terminated the agreement between the parties. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta found Abstak had an obligation to pursue the appeal for the permit and Telsec was entitled to damages in the amount of $2M. A majority of the C.A. found no error in the trial judge’s reasons warranting its intervention; it disagreed however with the damages award, and found Abstak’s initial deposit on the transaction should be deducted from the damages. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”