Dismissed (4)

Charter: Freedom of Association & Conscience 

Delta Hospice Society v. Farrish, 2020 BCCA 312 (39504)
Delta Hospice Society was a non‑profit society under the Societies Act with a Constitution and Bylaws. It operated a palliative care hospice and a support centre for the dying. The Fraser Health Authority was requiring palliative care hospices including Delta Hospice Society to make medically‑assisted dying services available unless they are a religious or faith‑based organization. Delta Hospice Society’s Board of Directors called an Extraordinary General Meeting to have the members vote on proposed changes to its Constitution and Bylaws that will bring it within the exemption for religious or faith‑based organization. In advance of the Extraordinary General Meeting, Directors of the Board denied 310 membership applications from persons whom they could not confirm are willing or reasonably likely to vote against providing medically-assisted dying services. Members of Delta Hospice Society petitioned the B.C.S.C. for relief under the Societies Act, challenging the membership application decisions. The court granted declaratory relief. In part, it cancelled the Extraordinary General Meeting and ordered that Delta Hospice Society’s Register of members must be rectified to include the names of the Applicants who were denied membership. The B.C.C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Harassment 

Rancourt v. R., 2020 QCCA 933 (39395)
The Applicant, Bryan Rancourt, and the complainant went out together for over three years. After the complainant decided to put an end to their relationship, she received a number of messages from the Applicant, as well as anonymous letters and telephone calls. She complained about him to the police. As a result, charges of criminal harassment of and harassing communications to her were laid against the Applicant by summary procedure. The Court of Québec found the Applicant guilty of both offences. Regarding the offence of criminal harassment, the trial judge found the complainant had subjective reasons to fear for her safety and her fear was objectively justified, because a reasonable person would also have feared for their safety. The Québec Superior Court allowed the Applicant’s appeal in part by setting aside the verdict of guilty of criminal harassment, holding while it is true that a person suffering from anxiety could easily fear for their safety, did not mean the complainant in this case had feared for hers. The Respondent appealed that decision. The Québec C.A. unanimously allowed the appeal and restored the verdict of guilty of criminal harassment. In the C.A.’s view, the Superior Court appeal judge had overstepped the limits of his power of intervention in concluding the evidence did not show the complainant had feared for her safety. “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 Assault

P. v. R., 2019 BCCA 462 (39463)

There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault of a child. “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.”

Human Rights: Alleged Discrimination 

Curtis v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, 2020 FCA 149  (39495)
Mr. Curtis had been employed by the Respondent Bank of Nova Scotia for many years. After he left his employment there, he launched several proceedings against the Bank and also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging adverse differential treatment and termination of employment based on race and colour. In July of 2018, he filed a notice of application with the Federal Court, seeking an order for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commission to investigate his complaint and to appoint a neutral party as an investigator.  In October 2018, Mr. Curtis and the Commission filed motions for interlocutory orders. Mr. Curtis moved to be permitted to make significant amendments to his application, to add new forms of relief against the Bank and the Commission and adding several new parties. The Commission moved for an order allowing to be removed as Respondent. The Prothonotary allowed certain amendments to be made to the application but disallowed proposed amendments involving relief against the Bank. The Commission was permitted to withdraw its motion without costs.  Mr. Curtis was ordered to pay costs to the Bank. Mr. Curtis’ appeal from that decision was dismissed with costs. His further appeal to the Fed. C.A. was dismissed with costs. “The request for an oral hearing is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Bank of Nova Scotia.”