Dismissed (28)

Administrative Law: Fresh Evidence 

Sharma v. Edmonton (Police Service), 2020 ABCA 308 (39491)
Mr. Sharma complained to the Edmonton Police Service about alleged misbehaviour by Cst. Saunders. The Acting Chief of Police dismissed the complaint after finding no reasonable prospect of a conviction at a disciplinary hearing. Mr. Sharma filed a Notice of Appeal. The Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board heard the appeal. Before it released its decision, the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board received an anonymous letter alleging different misconduct by Cst. Saunders. The letter was not submitted to the panel. The panel dismissed the appeal. Appeal proceedings commenced before the C.A. and were returned to the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board on consent. The Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board received a second anonymous letter similar to the first. It refused to admit the letters as fresh evidence and upheld the prior decision dismissing the appeal. The C.A. denied leave to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Bankruptcy: Lack of Capacity 

Johnson v. Fisher, 2020 ONCA 613 (39450)
The Applicant filed an assignment into bankruptcy. He subsequently commenced an action against the Respondent for damages. At the time, he was an undischarged bankrupt. The motion judge struck out the Applicant’s claim on the basis of lack of legal capacity. The C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Civil Procedure: Litigation Guardians 

W.D.M. v. Native Child and Family Services of Toronto, 2020 ONCA 641 (39509)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a publication ban on the party, in the context of two personal injury actions commenced by a litigation guardian. “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.”

Civil Procedure: Summary Judgments 

Hannam v. Medicine Hat School District No. 76, 2020 ABCA 343 (39442)
On an early January morning in Medicine Hat, the Applicant, Ms. Hannam slipped and fell on the sidewalk outside her daughter’s school and broke her ankle. The fall happened seconds after the school custodian had sanded the sidewalks. Ms. Hannam commenced an action against the Respondent, Medicine Hat School District alleging negligence and breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act. The Medicine Hat School District applied for summary judgment. The Master granted the application. The chambers judge allowed Ms. Hannam’s appeal finding a trial was necessary. The majority of the C.A. allowed the appeal and found the case was ideally suited for summary disposition. The dissenting judge of the C.A. would have dismissed the School District’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Civil Procedure: Vexatious Litigants 

Green v. University of Winnipeg, 2020 MBCA 49 (39448)
In 2011, Mr. Green was a student at the University of Winnipeg’s Bachelor of Education program.  In November 2011, a complaint was filed against him by the Associate Dean of Education and he was also terminated from his high school practicum placement.  The Registrar of the University conducted an investigation into both incidents and on the ensuing recommendation, Mr. Green was suspended from the teacher certification program in January 2012. His application for reinstatement was refused. Mr. Green brought a succession of unsuccessful court actions, appeals and applications for leave to appeal against the University, staff and other individuals. In 2018, he appealed from a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench granting the University’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Mr. Green’s statement of claim. Mr. Green also appealed the dismissal of his application for judicial review in a related matter. The University was the defendant in both actions and applied for an order prohibiting Mr. Green from continuing and commencing further proceedings pursuant to the vexatious litigant provisions of The C.A. Act. A single judge issued an order prohibiting Mr. Green from continuing with the litigation and from commencing future actions against the named parties. Mr. Green’s appeal from that decision was adjourned to allow him to seek leave to appeal. His application for leave to appeal was dismissed. “The motion to join two files from the Court of Appeal of Manitoba is granted. The motion of 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.”

Civil Procedure: Vexatious Litigants 

Hayden v. Hayden, 2020 ABCA 37 (39512)
Ms. Hayden was terminated from her employment with Alberta Health Services (“AHS”) and unsuccessfully pursued a grievance with the assistance of her Union and her lawyer. Ms. Hayden then sued AHS, the Alberta Union of Public Employees and approximately 50 other individuals in an action that was eventually stayed. In 2018, Ms. Hayden commenced an action against two other lawyers from the law firm that had previously represented her, alleging oppression under the Alberta Business Corporations Act. The case management judge granted leave to the Respondents to file an application to have Ms. Hayden declared a vexatious litigant. He subsequently stayed the action as a potential abuse of the court’s processes. He also issued an Interim Court Access Restriction Order precluding the Applicant from continuing or commencing further actions without leave of the court. Ms. Hayden sought leave of a single judge of the C.A. to bring an application for various relief and leave to appeal the Restrictions Order.  Both requests were denied. Ms. Hayden’s application to have the matter placed before a panel of three judges of the C.A. for consideration was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to Alberta Health Services and Alberta Union of Public Employees.”

Class Actions in Québec: Tribunal Members 

Lassonde v. Attorney General of Québec, 2020 QCCA 1198 (39428)
In 2010, the Québec government took various measures to control public spending and improve the state of public finances in what was considered a difficult economic context. In addition to the budget cuts provided for in the Act to implement certain provisions of the Budget Speech of 30 March 2010, reduce the debt and return to a balanced budget in 2013‑2014, four orders-in-council were made between 2010 and 2014 dealing, among other things, with the remuneration of members of administrative bodies and, in particular, the payment of performance bonuses and salary scale progression. The orders-in-council were challenged in court. In a first decision, the C.A. found although the 2010 order did not infringe the guarantee of judicial independence of administrative tribunals, it was nonetheless inapplicable to the members who were protected by their tribunal’s constituting Act from any reduction in their remuneration (Association des juges administratifs de la Commission des lésions professionnelles v. Québec (Procureur général), 2013 QCCA 1690). In a second decision, the C.A. agreed with the Superior Court the government could not, simply by order-in-council, unilaterally change the members’ conditions of employment, including the salary review conditions, set out in the contracts of employment appended to their orders of appointment. It found those contracts could be amended only through the enactment of a legislative provision for that purpose (Hardy v. Québec (Procureure générale), 2013 QCCS 602). Following the latter decision, the National Assembly passed the Act respecting mainly the suspension of payment of bonuses in the context of budget‑balancing measures in March 2015. That declaratory statute had the effect of retroactively reducing the salaries of the members of various administrative tribunals for the period of 2010 to 2015 and therefore of implementing legislatively what could not be accomplished by order-in-council. In 2013, the Applicants, Richard Lassonde and Guy Couture, former members of administrative tribunals, applied for authorization to institute a class action on behalf of themselves and the members of 12 administrative tribunals whose conditions of employment, including the review of their salaries, were provided for in contracts of employment. For some of those members, there was a provision in the tribunal’s constituting Act that prohibited the government from reducing their remuneration. They contested the application of the four orders-in-council and the 2015 Act to their situation. Authorization to institute a class action was granted in 2016. The Superior Court dismissed the class action and the C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Criminal Law: Charter “Testimony”

Cameron v. R., 2020 ABCA 276 (39444)
The Applicant, Mr. Cameron, was the President, Secretary, and sole director of VTI, an Alberta company which he incorporated in 2002. In 2005, the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) determined VTI violated securities law by distributing securities to British Columbia residents without complying with relevant registration and prospectus requirements. The B.C.S.C. also determined VTI’s password protected website gave false information about the monthly return of its preferred shares to investors, and the Applicant was responsible for VTI’s illegal distribution and its misrepresentation to shareholders. The B.C.S.C. and the Applicant entered into a Settlement Agreement in April 2005. The Applicant was convicted of fraud and tax evasion. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. The B.C.C.A. held the protection of s. 13 of the Charter applied only to sworn testimony provided in an earlier proceeding. “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: Driving Offences

R. v. Stewart, 2020 SKCA 116 (39462)

There was a single vehicle accident which resulted in the death of Ms. Busse and Mr. Powell, and bodily harm to Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Stewart does not dispute he was driving the vehicle when they left a bar; however, Mr. Stewart testified prior to the accident, he pulled the vehicle over to the side of the highway and switched places with Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Stewart denied his driving caused the death or bodily harm of the other occupants. The identity of the driver of the vehicle was the sole issue at trial. Mr. Stewart was convicted of dangerous driving, impaired driving and driving over the legal limit causing the death of two people and causing bodily harm to a third. The C.A. found the verdict was unreasonable within the meaning of s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code. The C.A. allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Fraud 

R.E. v. R., 2020 ONCA 649 (39508)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of commercial fraud and fraud-related offences. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Harassment; Mistrial Applications 

Sidhu v. R., 2020 ABCA 377 (39490)
The Applicant was convicted of criminal harassment. The Applicant brought an application for a stay of his sentencing hearing pending determination of his conviction appeal and for a stay of the trial judge giving reasons for denying the mistrial application. The C.A. dismissed the application on the ground the justice had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Applicant. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Jury Member Conduct 

Smith v. R., 2020 QCCA 1210 (39443)
A few days after the commencement of a trial for two attempts to commit murder using firearms and two first degree murders (ss. 239(1)(a.1) and 235 Criminal Code), for which the Applicant, Mr. Smith, was one of the accused, a juror sent the trial judge a note in which he suggested she reiterate to the jurors they were not to consult extrinsic information and remind them of the importance of beginning their deliberations only after having heard all the evidence. The note concerned the conduct of one of the jurors who had, during the trial, been conducting Internet searches about the accused on his portable telephone. After reading the note, the trial judge gave an instruction to the jury. A few days later, she reminded the jurors of the oath they had sworn at the start of the trial to consider all the evidence, reach a verdict based solely on that evidence and protect the secrecy of their deliberations. The next day, she ordered the jurors’ portable telephones be confiscated on hearing days. In the Québec Superior Court, the jury reached verdicts Mr. Smith and the other two accused were guilty of two attempts to commit murder using firearms and two first degree murders. The accused appealed the guilty verdicts; the Québec C.A. dismissed their appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Jury Process 

Lewis v. R., 2017 ONCA 216 (39356)
There is a publication ban in this case, a sealing order, and the court file contains information not available for inspection by the public, in the context of jury process. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Search & Seizure 

Wolfson v. R., 2020 QCCA 856 (39352)
Between September 29, 2012 and October 28, 2012, the Applicant, Mr. Wolfson, allegedly shot at five people in four separate incidents. Two people were killed and the other three survived. While in a Montréal bar on November 3, 2012, the Applicant was questioned by police officers. He was suspected of acting as a “watchman” for three individuals the police had arrested after discovering a firearm in the possession of one of them. The Applicant was detained and subjected to a pat-down search that led to the discovery of a firearm. He was arrested. The officers then obtained various search warrants that enabled them to seize, among other things, firearms that had been used in the above‑mentioned incidents. The Applicant was charged with murder, attempted murder and possession of a restricted firearm. Before his trial, the Applicant filed a motion to exclude evidence in the Québec Superior Court. He alleged his right not to be arbitrarily detained and his right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure had been infringed. He sought the exclusion of all evidence obtained in the police operation of November 3, 2012. The trial judge dismissed the motion in a voir dire. After a jury trial, the Applicant was found guilty on two counts of attempted murder, one of first degree murder and one of possession of a restricted firearm. The Applicant appealed against the four guilty verdicts, arguing the trial judge had erred in dismissing his motion to exclude the evidence. The C.A. held the trial judge had made no palpable and overriding error in assessing the facts related to the incidents of November 3, 2012 and no error of law in declining to exclude the physical evidence discovered in the pat‑down search. In the C.A.’s view, the trial judge had properly concluded the rights guaranteed in ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter had not been infringed, and it was therefore not necessary to review the principles applicable to applications for the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2). “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Sentencing 

Garrell v. R., 2020 ONCA 127 (39489)
Three witnesses implicated the Applicant in a home-invasion robbery, in which the homeowner was shot. A Crown witness, G., pled guilty to participating in the robbery and gave evidence of the Applicant’s role in agreed facts at his plea. At the Applicant’s trial, G. gave a more exculpatory version, although the facts he pled to were admitted for their truth. After a trial by judge and jury, the Applicant was convicted of armed robbery. The Applicant was sentenced to 8.5 years’ imprisonment. The C.A. dismissed the conviction appeal. The sentence appeal was granted only to the extent of crediting 90 days pre‑sentence custody, reducing the Applicant’s custodial term by 90 days. “The motion to appoint counsel is 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: Sexual Offences 

E.D. v. R., 2020 ONCA 633 (39454)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a publication ban on the party, in the context of sexual offences. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Employment Law: Dismissal 

RTO Asset Management v. Abrams, 2020 NBCA 57 (39380)
The Respondent, Mr. Abrams, was employed by the Applicant, RTO Asset Management (“RTO”), for approximately 30 years. In 2017, it came to light Mr. Abrams had been engaging in a romantic relationship with an employee whom he was obliged to supervise, among others. He failed to report the situation to RTO, as he was required to do, and his employment was terminated. Mr. Abrams was told his dismissal was being effected on a without cause basis. The letter given to Mr. Abrams in support of his termination confirmed he was being let go without cause. However, in that same letter, RTO reserved its right to take the position it had cause for terminating Mr. Abrams. Mr. Abrams refused the termination package, brought a wrongful dismissal suit, and moved to have the action decided on a summary basis. The Court of Queen’s Bench granted summary judgment in RTO’s favour, and dismissed Mr. Abrams’ action. The court found RTO had cause for dismissing Mr. Abrams, and there were no issues requiring a trial. The C.A. allowed Mr. Abrams’ appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench, and granted summary judgment in Mr. Abrams’ favour. It found the letter clearly terminated Mr. Abrams on a without cause basis, and declared the without cause termination provision in the employment contract to be null and void. It awarded Mr. Abrams 24 months’ notice, having regard to his age and length of service, along with other factors. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Family Law in Québec: De Facto Spouses 

Gaulin v. Chapados, 2020 QCCA 798 (39405)
The Applicant, Mr. Gaulin, and the Respondent, Ms. Chapados, were former de facto spouses. In 2015, Mr. Gaulin purchased a house for $74K.  Shortly before the transaction, Ms. Chapados had loaned him $75,843.77, as noted on a receipt that referred to the purchase of the house. The parties ended their relationship in July 2016. En 2017, Ms. Chapados obtained a default judgment for $15K against Mr. Gaulin in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec, for which she received full payment from M. Gaulin. Ms. Chapados then sought to be compensated for a portion of costs paid for personal effects, for time spent renovating the house and for furniture. In November 2017, Ms. Chapados filed an action in the Court of Québec in which she claimed $60K as repayment of the loan for the purchase of the house. The Court of Québec allowed Ms. Chapados’s action and the C.A. granted a motion to dismiss and dismissed Mr. Gaulin’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Family Law in Québec: De Facto Spouses 

Porte v. Courbet, 2020 QCCA 706 (39426)
The Applicant, Stéphane Porte, and the Respondent, Marlène Courbet, terminated their relationship as de facto spouses in January 2018. They had been acquiring buildings since 2012. In October 2015, they had signed an indivision agreement for five buildings they had acquired. That agreement provided for, among other things, a pre‑emptive right with respect to three of the buildings that would apply should they cease sharing a community of life. It also included a clause for purchase/sale with obligation to dispose that provided none of the co‑owners could alienate his or her rights in any of the buildings without first offering them to the other in writing. If the co‑owner did not wish to avail him or herself of the offer of sale within 30 days of receiving the written notice, the offeror would then be free to acquire the co‑owner’s share on the same terms. The co‑owner was required to assign his or her share within 30 days after the expiration of the right of option. On March 30, 2018, Ms. Courbet initiated the process to terminate the indivision on the basis of that clause. In July 2018, after several exchanges between the parties, Ms. Courbet filed in the Superior Court an application to partition the buildings held in co‑ownership in order, among other things, to be declared to be the sole owner of the buildings. Mr. Porte filed a cross‑application in order, among other things, to be declared to have a right of preference in respect of one of the buildings and to be declared to be sole owner of that building and of two other buildings. The Superior Court granted Ms. Courbet’s application in part and Mr. Porte’s cross‑application in part. The C.A. dismissed a motion for leave to appeal after the expiration of the time limit for doing so, granted a motion to dismiss the appeal and dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent.”

Family Law in Québec: Translation 

S.R. v. C.M., 2020 QCCA (39482)
There is a publication ban on the party, in the context of translation of family law documents. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family Law: Pre-Nups 

Atwill v. Kyle, 2020 ONSC 476 (39422)
The parties began cohabitating in 2004 and were married in 2005. Several days before the wedding, they entered into a marriage contract in which the parties waived any entitlement to spousal support and agreed to be separate as to property. Although the agreement indicated each party had received independent legal advice, neither actually did. The marriage contract also stated each party had provided fair and reasonable disclosure of their property and financial obligations. The parties separated in 2012. The husband moved out of the matrimonial home owned by the wife. The parties retained lawyers and negotiations between them ensued. The husband applied for spousal support and equalization of net family property in August 2017. The wife defended by relying on the marriage contract as a complete defence. The husband asked the court to set aside the marriage contract on the basis he had signed it without financial disclosure, without legal advice, under duress, and under a clear power imbalance. Although the husband commenced the proceeding within the six‑year limitation period for equalization claims under s. 7(3)(b) of the Family Law Act more than two years had elapsed since the parties had separated. The wife obtained summary judgment, dismissing the husband’s claim, on the basis the request to rescind the marriage contract was out of time under the general two-year limitation period in s. 4 of the Limitations Act. That decision was overturned on appeal. “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.”

Intellectual Property: Copyright 

Les Éditions Québec Amérique inc. v. Druide Informatique inc., 2020 QCCA 1197 (39391)
The Applicant, Les Éditions Québec Amérique inc. (QA), designed and published Le Visuel, a thematic dictionary in which words can be found based on an illustration or theme. An electronic version, Le Visuel multimédia, was launched in 1996. The Respondent, Druide informatique inc., designed the Antidote writing assistance software launched in 1996. In 1998, the parties entered into an oral agreement to create an electronic bridge between their respective products to promote them to users of each other’s software. In 2004, the parties launched a new version of their respective software and agreed to change the electronic bridge by incorporating Le Visuel’s index into the Antidote software. Between 2005 and 2009, the parties continued to work together to integrate Le Visuel into the Antidote software, and Druide designed and developed two interfaces called Le Visuel nano and Le Visuel intégré at its own expense. In 2009, the two interfaces were deployed when the new version of Antidote HD was launched. Le Visuel nano was automatically incorporated into Antidote HD, where the illustrations from Le Visuel multimédia were presented in a larger format to encourage Antidote users to purchase it. Le Visuel intégré was offered and sold separately through Antidote and incorporated QA’s work in full. The parties agreed orally they would share the revenues from the sale of Le Visuel intégré equally. In 2010 and 2011, the parties discussed but did not enter into a written agreement concerning the use of QA’s works by Druide. In June 2011, QA sent a notice of revocation of authorization in which it ended any non‑exclusive copyright authorization that may have been granted to Druide and ordered Druide to remove its works from the Antidote HD software. The revocation date was postponed to January 2012 because of continuing discussions between the parties. In August 2012, QA filed a motion for an order requiring Druide to cease all use of its works immediately. Druide filed a cross demand. The Superior Court granted the motion in part and dismissed the cross demand. The C.A. allowed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent.”

Military Law: Motions to Strike 

Lafrenière v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 CAF 110 (39404)
The Applicant served in the Canadian Armed Forces. After suffering a knee injury, he was reassigned to a position as a military journalist. In 2009, following allegations of inappropriate conduct, he was suspended without any explanation and then transferred to another position. In 2012, an investigation concluded the allegations were without merit. In response to a grievance filed by the Applicant, it was found there had been serious breaches of procedural fairness in connection with his superiors’ decision. In an action against the Respondent, the Applicant sought a letter of apology, a total of $400K in compensation and an award of costs on a solicitor‑client basis. The Respondent filed a motion to have the Applicant’s statement of claim struck out without possibility of amendment on the ground it disclosed no reasonable cause of action or was otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The Fed. Court allowed the Respondent’s motion to strike in part. It gave the Applicant 30 days to serve and file an amended statement of claim. The Fed. C.A. found the Applicant’s appeal could not succeed but allowed the cross‑appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Police: Discipline 

Heffernan v. Saskatchewan Police Commission, 2020 SKCA 119 (39467)
The Applicant, Corey Heffernan, was employed as a Special Constable with the Prince Albert Police Service. Mr. Heffernan was charged with three disciplinary offences. He was found not guilty of the first two charges, but found guilty of the third charge of making a misleading and inaccurate entry in a dispatch ticket. As a result, he was given a reprimand. Mr. Heffernan applied for permission to appeal the penalty decision to the Saskatchewan Police Commission. About one week later, Mr. Heffernan was dismissed from his employment for unrelated operational reasons. Approximately six months later, the Saskatchewan Police Commission dismissed Mr. Heffernan’s application for permission to appeal on the basis they lacked jurisdiction and the issue was moot since Mr. Heffernan was no longer an employee of the Prince Albert Police Service. Mr. Heffernan submitted an application for judicial review of the Saskatchewan Police Commission’s decision to the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan. However, the application for judicial review was dismissed. Mr. Heffernan appealed the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan’s decision and sought the introduction of fresh evidence. The C.A. dismissed both the appeal and the application for the admission of fresh evidence. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, the Chief of Police of the Prince Albert Police Service.”

Professions: Use of “Doctor” 

Berge v. College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, 2020 ONCA (39449)
Ms. Berge was an audiologist who has a doctorate degree and who practised in Ontario. She was disciplined by the College of Audiologists and Speech‑Language Pathologists of Ontario for using the title “Doctor” in the course of providing health care to individuals in contravention of s. 33 of the Ontario Regulated Health Professions Act. After exhausting appeal proceedings, she filed motions to the Divisional Court seeking an order setting aside or varying the decision of the Divisional Court and other relief. The Divisional Court dismissed the motions. The C.A. denied leave to file fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal. “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, College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario.”

Real Estate: Purchase & Sale; “Shadow Flipping” 

Habib v. Bajwa, 2020 BCCA 230 (39468)
The Applicants, Mr. Habib and Mrs. Shahid (the “Vendors”), were the owners of a property in Surrey, B.C. In May 2017, they entered into a contract with the Respondent, Mr. Parmar (the “Purchaser”), for the purchase and sale of the property, with completion and possession dates of July 31 and August 1, 2017. The parties later attempted to negotiate an extension to these dates, but did not come to an agreement. Ultimately, the Vendors advised they would not be completing the sale of the property, and the transaction did not proceed. The Respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Bajwa (the “Assignees”), alleged they were assignees of the contract. They sued for specific performance of the contract, and alternatively, for damages for breach of contract. The Vendors counterclaimed against the Assignees, the Purchaser, and a number of individuals associated with Sutton West Coast Realty, for damages for misrepresentation, misleading information, impersonation, unprofessional activities and involvement in unethical practices, such as “shadow flipping” for personal gain. By way of three separate judgments, the B.C.S.C.: 1) ordered specific performance of the contract and dismissed the Vendors’ counterclaim; 2) reopened the trial, set aside the specific performance order and adjourned the summary trial; and 3) awarded damages to Mr. Bajwa as the only assignee of the contract. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the Vendors’ appeal. It found though it was an improper exercise of discretion for the court below to reopen the trial, that error was of no consequence to the Vendors. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Tax: Documentation Timetables 

Keenan v. R., 2020 FCA (39506)
Mr. Keenan and a number of businesses were the subject of reassessments outside the normal assessment period by the CRA. Mr. Keenan was reassessed based on unreported business income and income from the sale of shares and shareholder appropriations. Business expenses and Canadian exploration expenses were also disallowed. Mr. Keenan objected to the reassessments. An order setting a timetable for the serving of certain documents was set. That order was later amended. Mr. Keenan was found to have comply with the timetable, and his request for reconsideration was denied. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent.”

Utilities: Rate Increase Jurisdiction 

Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs v. Manitoba (Public Utilities Board) et al., 2020 MBCA 60 (39377)
The Manitoba Hydro‑Electric Board sought a 7.9 percent increase to all components of the rates for all customer classes, effective April 1, 2018. A majority of the Board instead ordered a 3.6 percent average revenue increase. However, in Directive 6 of Order No. 59/18, the Board ordered Manitoba Hydro to create a First Nations On‑Reserve Residential customer class that was to receive a zero percent increase. Manitoba Hydro was granted leave to appeal to address whether it had jurisdiction to direct the creation of a First Nations On‑Reserve Residential customer class. Meanwhile, the Board approved the resulting Residential Rates Schedule in Order No. 86/16. Manitoba Hydro applied for review and to vary Orders No. 59/18 and 68/18, including the directive. In Order No. 90/18, the Board denied the application to vary the directive. As such, Orders No. 68/18 and 90/18 were also subject to the appeal to the extent they reflected the directive contained in Order No. 59/18. The C.A. allowed the appeal, finding Directive 6 constituted the creation and implementation of general social policy, which was outside the jurisdiction of the Board and encroached on the competence of the federal and provincial governments. It also breached the Manitoba Hydro Act which says customers are not to be classified solely based on the region of the province in which they live or the density of the population. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”