Granted (1)

Criminal Law: Sexual Offences 

R. v. J.D., 2020 QCCA 1108 (39370)
There is a publication ban on the party, in the context of sexual offences against minors. “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 granted.”

Dismissed (6)

Civil Procedure: Vexatious Litigation 

Hirji, et al. v. The Owners Strata Corporation Plan VR 44, 2020 BCCA 285 (37420)
Mr. and Ms. Hirji commenced a civil claim against a condo council, Owners Strata Corporation Plan VR 44, alleging negligence in failing to maintain and repair common property. They claim fraud, fraud against the courts, miscarriage of justice, other defects in prior proceedings and breaches of the Constitution, the Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A chambers judge struck the action under Rule 9.5(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, BC Reg 168/2009. The chambers judge declared Mr. and Ms. Hirji vexatious litigants and prohibited them from further legal proceedings against the defendants in the B.C.S.C. without leave or until payment of outstanding costs awards. The B.C.C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Family Law in Québec” Divorce; Suretyship 

A.A. c. R.A., 2020 QCCA 1301 (39461)
There is a publication ban the on party; certain information is not available to the public, in the context of protracted divorce litigation and suretyship. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Municipal Law in Québec: Zoning 

Gestion Tasa Inc., et al. v. Ville de Montréal, 2020 QCCA 1391 (39502)
Gestion Tasa inc. acquired a building located in Montréal, in which La Maison Sami T.A. Fruits inc., a company related to Gestion Tasa, planned to operate a business selling fruits and vegetables. Ville de Montréal (“city”) issued a certificate of use for the building indicating the main authorized use was the wholesale selling of fruits and vegetables (“wholesale business”) and retail selling (“retail business”) was permitted only incidentally in an area not exceeding 15% of the first floor, in accordance with the applicable zoning by‑law. After the store opened, the city informed Sami Fruits it was contravening the zoning by‑law by operating the retail business in an area exceeding 15% of the square footage of the first floor of the building. The city later brought legal proceedings in which it sought, among other things, the cessation of the unauthorized use and a permanent injunction. The trial judge on the Québec Superior Court ruled in the city’s favour and ordered Gestion Tasa and Sami Fruits to comply with the zoning by‑law and to cease the incidental use consisting of retail selling of fruits and vegetables in an area exceeding 15% of the total gross floor area of the first floor of the building. The Québec C.A. unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by Gestion Tasa and Sami Fruits. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Professions in Québec: Right to be Heard 

McSween v. Ordre des psychologues du Québec, 2020 QCCA 1100 (39497)
The Respondent alleged the Applicant, who was not a member of either the Collège des médecins du Québec or the Ordre des psychologues du Québec and who did not hold a permit as a psychotherapist, had made unauthorized use of the title of psychotherapist, had unlawfully practised psychotherapy and had engaged in professional activities reserved for the members of the Ordre des psychologues du Québec, contrary to ss. 37.2, 187.1 and 188 of the Professional Code, CQLR, c. C‑26. The presiding Justice of the Peace on the Court of Québec found the Applicant had committed the alleged acts, convicted her of five counts for offences under the Code and ordered her to pay the minimum fines of $2,500 per count. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal from that decision, finding the trial judge had not made any error of law or palpable and overriding error in analyzing the evidence concerning the statements of offence and the convictions were reasonably supported by the evidence. The C.A. dismissed the motion for leave to appeal out of time from that judgment, finding the Applicant had not shown sufficient interest in a question of law and her allegations about not being heard were vague and were insufficient to conclude, even on a prima facie basis, that the right to be heard had been infringed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Real Estate: Right of First Refusal 

Schembri, et al. v. Way, et. al, 2020 ONCA 691 (39514)
The Applicant, Gordon Schembri, and the Respondent, Al Way (Way), were real estate developers. There are two actions between these parties commonly referred to as the “Main Action” and the right of first refusal or “ROFR Action”. The motion for summary judgment deals with the ROFR Action where Mr. Schembri and one or more of his companies are defendants and Mr. Way and one or more of his companies are plaintiffs. In May 2017, Mr. Schembri brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss Mr. Way’s action on the ground clause 13 is an unenforceable restrictive covenant. Ontario Superior Court of Justice: summary judgment granted; Respondents right of first refusal action dismissed. C.A.: appeal allowed: summary judgment set aside with fixed costs. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Tax: Residency 

Rousseau v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2020 QCCA 1308 (39446)
Daniel Rousseau left Quebec in 1999 to go work in Alberta. He reported his income in Québec until the taxation year ending December 31, 2002. Beginning in 2003, he filed his returns with Revenue Canada on behalf of the tax authorities of Alberta, where he declared residency. In 2013, his file was audited by the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”), which determined he was a resident of Québec and accordingly issued, in October 2013, notices of estimated assessments for taxation years 2003 to 2011. Mr. Rousseau filed tax returns as a Québec resident for the period in question, after which, in September 2014, the ARQ issued corrected notices of assessment for the years at issue, which established Mr. Rousseau’s taxable income and tax payable in Québec, plus penalties and interest, for each of the taxation years concerned. Mr. Rousseau appealed from the notices of assessment issued by the ARQ for taxation years 2003 to 2011. The Court of Québec allowed the appeal in part solely to quash the penalties imposed. Mr. Rousseau appealed from the trial court’s judgment, but the Québec C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”