Granted (1)

Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Launder

R. v. Ste-Marie, et al., 2020 QCCA 1118 (39381)

The four Respondents were charged with conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime, laundering proceeds of crime, and commission of an offence for a criminal organization. In the Court of Québec, the Respondents moved for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay. The Court of Québec found s 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed but declined to stay the proceedings. It convicted the Respondents of the offences charged. On appeal from the guilty verdicts, the Qué. C.A. had to determine whether the Court of Québec had erred in declining to stay the proceedings after finding unreasonable delay. The C.A. allowed the Respondents’ appeals, quashed the convictions and ordered a stay of proceedings. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”

Dismissed (24)

Administrative Law: Order-in-Council; Judicial Review 

Shoan v. Attorney General of Canada, 2020 CAF 174 (39488)
The Applicant commenced an application under s 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act for judicial review of the decision of the Governor in Council and promulgated by Order-in-Council to terminate the Applicant’s good behaviour appointment as Commissioner for Ontario of the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for cause. The Fed. Court found the process leading up to the Order-in-Council was procedurally fair, and concluded the Order in Council was substantively reasonable. The Fed. Court dismissed the Applicant’s application for judicial review of the Order in Council. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion to serve and file an amended application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for leave to intervene by the Community Media Advocacy Centre is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Civil Procedure: Litigation Guardians 

Huang v. Braga, et al., 2020 ONCA 645 (39511)
The Applicant was in an MVA in 2000. She commenced three actions and the litigation spanned many years. The trial was set to begin in October, 2016. Just prior to the trial date, a Certified Capacity Assessor concluded the Applicant lacked capacity to act for herself in the litigation and the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) was appointed as the Applicant’s litigation guardian pursuant to rule 7.04(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Applicant brought six proceedings aimed at overturning the appointment of the PGT, but all were unsuccessful. In April, 2019, the Respondent, Mr. Braga, successfully brought a motion for an order the Applicant be prohibited from bringing further motions or appeals without leave of the court. The PGT retained outside counsel to act on its behalf as litigation guardian and settled the Applicant’s three original actions for $1M. The settlement was approved by the court.  The Applicant sought leave of the Ont. C.A. to allow her to appeal the order of the superior court approving the settlement.  The motion was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Ancieto M. Braga and the Public Guardian and Trustee.”

Civil Procedure: Motions to Strike 

Chowdhury v. City of Toronto, 2020 ONCA 539 (39465)
Toronto Community Housing Corporation was a corporation providing residential rental accommodation in Toronto. The corporation is owned by the city of Toronto. Ahasanullah Chowdhury is a tenant of Toronto Community Housing Corporation. Mr. Chowdhury commenced an action in 2014 against the same Respondents named in this application that was dismissed (including subsequent appeals). Mr. Chowdhury filed a statement of claim for these proceedings in 2019. The Respondents filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 21.011(b) of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion judge granted the motion to strike on the basis it plead no recognized legal action and was an abuse of process. The subsequent appeal to the Ont. C.A. was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Toronto Community Housing Corporation.”

Civil Procedure in Québec: Motions to Strike 

Hrabovskyy v. DAS Legal Protection Inc., et al., 2020 QCCA 956 (39470)
The Applicant claimed he was covered by a legal protection insurance contract while he was a student. He asked the defendants to pay his legal fees, to represent him in his proceedings against his university, and to pay various indemnities. The Qué Superior Court dismissed the Applicant’s claim on the ground it was unfounded in law and declared it abusive. The C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and declared it abusive. “The miscellaneous motions are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Civil Procedure in Québec: Motions to Strike 

Hrabovskyy v. Chubb European Group SE, et al., 2020 QCCA 1348 (39472)
The Applicant sued the Respondents under a travel insurance policy. The Qué. Superior Court dismissed the Applicant statement of claim and declared it abusive. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that the proposed appeal had no reasonable chance of success. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Construction Law: Concrete 

Lloyd’s Underwriters (as insurer of SNC-Lavalin Inc., formerly doing business as Terratech Inc. and SNC-Lavalin Environnement Inc.) et al. v. Deguise et al., 2020 QCCA 495 (39305)
Pyrrhotite is an iron sulphide sometimes found in deposits mined to extract concrete stone aggregate. Its presence can be deleterious, as it is known to cause undesirable chemical reactions. Upon oxidation, pyrrhotite can cause concrete to expand internally. The presence of pyrrhotite can accordingly lead to the degradation and weakening of building structures. The pyrrhotite litigation herein first dealt with by the lower courts was divided into three groups or “waves”, the first involving 832 buildings — that is, 446 single‑family residences, 312 semi‑detached residences, 56 multi‑unit residential buildings and 18 commercial buildings. The foundations of these buildings were damaged by the presence of pyrrhotite in the concrete aggregate used to build them. The litigation encompasses more than 880 actions which were divided, at first instance, among 69 court files. More than 800 appeals were filed with the Qué. C.A., by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants and their insurers. The various actions were launched against the general contractors or formworkers involved in building the foundations; the concrete suppliers who supplied the problematic concrete; the corporation that mined the quarry where the deleterious aggregate was extracted; Alain Blanchette, the geologist who approved the use of aggregate extracted from the quarry, and the successor to his employer, SNC‑Lavalin Inc.; and the insurance companies that entered into contracts with any of the parties being sued. The trial judge ultimately held, with some exceptions, the contractors, the corporation that mined the quarry, SNC‑Lavalin and Alain Blanchette and their insurers were liable in solidum. He apportioned liability in accordance with article 469 of the former Code of Civil Procedure. The apportionment of liability between the defendants for the damage caused to the plaintiffs for most of the residential cases was determined as follows: SNC‑Lavalin Inc. and Alain Blanchette are liable in solidum for the period from May 2003 to November 28, 2007 (70%); the quarry owner and concrete suppliers liable in solidum (25%, to be divided in two, i.e., 12.5% for the concrete supplier at issue and 12.5% for the quarry); and the independent contractors and formworkers were liable in solidum (5%). The Qué. C.A. allowed the appeals in part, with respect to the apportionment of liability between defendants and the applications for forced intervention. The court reduced the liability of the contractors to 0%. The court also determined the insurance tower covering SNC‑Lavalin for the 2009‑2010 policy period was not eroded by the payment of costs and expenses in the settlement of the Keystone litigation in Alberta. “The motions for an extension of time to serve and file the applications for leave to appeal are granted. The motion by the applicant Lloyd’s Underwriters for an extension of time to serve and file its replies to October 30, 2020 is granted. The motions to join lower court file numbers and consolidate the applications for leave to appeal from the related judgments of the Court of Appeal of Quebec are granted. The motion to strike by the respondents to the First Application is granted in part, and the affidavits of Travis Budd and David J. Matcham are struck from the application for leave to appeal of Lloyd’s Underwriters. The motion to strike by the respondents to the Fourth Application is granted in part, and the affidavit of Peter Needra is struck from the application for leave to appeal of Chubb Insurance Company of Canada. The six applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed with costs. *For greater certainty, this judgment incorporates by reference the related lower court file numbers and parties set out in the annexes of the Court of Appeal of Quebec’s Main Judgment dated April 6, 2020 and of its judgment dated June 12, 2020. A list of respondents to each of the six leave applications can be obtained on the Supreme Court of Canada website at https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/parties-eng.aspx?cas=39305.”

Corporate Law: Oppression Remedy 

0799701 B.C. Ltd., et al. v. Canex Investment Corporation, et al., 2020 BCCA 231 (39419)
The Applicant, 0799701 B.C. Ltd., was a company (the “Company”) established in 2007 by majority shareholder and director Mr. Familamiri, together with minority shareholders, Canex Investment Corporation (“Canex”) and Cube 4 Construction & Design Ltd. (“Cube 4”) for the purpose of purchasing and developing a parcel of land in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia (“Suffolk lands”). Mr. Familamiri and Ms. Amiri (the “personal defendants”) are father and daughter and also owned and controlled the closely‑held family company, Flame Engineering and Construction (“Flame”), which provided management and other services to Mr. Familamiri’s projects, including services to the Company. Ms. Amiri maintained the financial records for both the Company and for Flame and also served as director of the Company. The principals of Canex and Cube 4, Mr. Baikoghli and Mr. Sohrabi, made investments to the Company for their respective shareholdings. In July 2010, Mr. Familamiri, Ms. Amiri and Flame began a course of conduct that led to Canex and Cube 4, together with their principals, to seek oppression remedies under the Business Corporations Act. The Company took out a mortgage against the Suffolk properties, the Company’s only significant asset, most of which was paid by the Company to Flame for the benefit of the personal defendants. Subsequently, the Company sold the Suffolk properties. On completion of the sale, the mortgage was paid out from the proceeds. Ms. Amiri also sent Canex and Cube 4 revised financial statements for 2010 and 2011, which showed charges to the Company for management fees and interest and other changes. The effect of these financial restatements and the mortgage was to deprive Canex and Cube 4 of most of the value of their investment in the Company. Canex and Cube 4 immediately commenced proceedings against the Company, Ms. Amiri and Mr. Familamiri under the oppression remedy provisions of the BCA. The trial judge held their actions were oppressive. She awarded Canex and Cube 4 damages in the amount they sought for the return of their investments. She declined to award punitive damages. Her decision regarding the oppression remedy was upheld. The B.C.C.A. also awarded Canex and Cube 4 punitive damages in the amount of $100K. “The motion to join two Court of Appeal for British Columbia files in a single application for leave to appeal is granted. 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: Conspiracy to Launder; Jury Issues 

Lafortune v. R., 2020 QCCA 1378 (39494)
The Applicant was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime (s. 465(1)(c)). The Applicant and the prosecutor appealed the trial judge’s decision granting a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal in part. On appeal, the Applicant argued his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted on all counts. He argued the jury’s verdict was unreasonable. The prosecutor took the view the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal should not have been granted with respect to the Applicant and the counts in the indictment that concerned him should have been put to the jury. The C.A. dismissed the appeal from the Applicant’s guilty verdict, the Applicant’s motion for a stay of proceedings and the prosecutor’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Launder; Jury Issues 

Amato v. R., 2020 QCCA 1378 (39498)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Fraud over $5K 

Brar v. R., 2020 ABCA 398 (39519)
The Applicant was charged with a single count of fraud over $5K against TD Canada Trust. The prosecution’s theory of the case was the Applicant had deposited a series of cheques into a TD Canada Trust account held by Anet Systems Ltd. (a corporation of which he was the sole shareholder and director), knowing there were not sufficient funds in the payor accounts to cover the cheques, and he withdrew significant amounts from the TD account before the cheques were returned NSF. The Crown sought to admit the exhibits through s. 29 of the Canada Evidence Act. The trial judge concluded on the basis of uncontradicted affidavit evidence certain TD Canada Trust records — including stills from ATM and branch surveillance cameras—were admissible pursuant to s. 29 of the Canada Evidence Act. The Applicant was convicted of fraud over $5K. The C.A. upheld the trial judge’s decision, and dismissed the conviction appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Fraud over $5K 

Iyer v. R., 2020 ABCA 439 (39563)
Through Trident Properties Ltd., Mr. Iyer sold interests in land developments. The lands however proved to be undevelopable for 25 to 40 years. Mr. Iyer spent some invested funds on personal luxury items. Mr. Iyer was charged with fraud for failing to reveal the unlikelihood the land could be developed, representations intended to keep the investors from withdrawing funds or spending money held by Trident Properties Ltd. for purposes other than improving the value of the investments. A jury found Mr. Iyer guilty on 33 counts of fraud over $5K under s. 380 of the Criminal Code. The Alta. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Jury Charges re Racial Bias 

Theodore, et al. v. R., 2020 SKCA 131 (39555)
A drug dealer was fatally shot. His body dismembered and decapitated before disposal. Mr. Theodore, Mr. Bellegarde and Mr. Gordon were tried jointly before a jury. Mr. Gordon and Mr. Bellegarde are Indigenous. Mr. Theodore is Caucasian. Mr. Bellegarde is a member of an Indigenous street gang. Mr. Theodore and Mr. Gordon were partners in drug dealing and Mr. Gordon supplied the Indigenous street gang. Potential jurors were not challenged for cause or otherwise pre-screened for racial bias. The jury charge did not include a specific instruction on the need to set aside racial biases about Indigenous persons. A jury found Mr. Theodore, Mr. Bellegarde and Mr. Gordon guilty of first degree murder, and Mr. Theodore and Mr. Bellegarde guilty of offering an indignity to the drug dealer’s remains. The C.A. dismissed the appeals. “The motion to file a single application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Environmental Law: Spills 

Mossman, et al. v. R., 2020 BCCA 299 (39500)
2In response to a significant discharge of mine waste into the environment, the Applicants, as operators of the corporate defendant, Banks Island Gold, were charged along with the corporation and others, with contraventions of both provincial and federal environmental legislation. Four officers flew over the relevant sites, confirming spills had occurred at each. After landing, they visited the two sites, obtained samples, and then took a joint statement from the Applicants, Mr. Meckert and Mr. Mossman. A voir dire was held to determine whether the observational evidence gathered on the visit, the Spill Report, and the statements taken on two occasions should be excluded on the basis they had been obtained in breach of the Applicants’ Charter rights. The trial judge applied a contextual approach consistent with R. v. Nolet, 2010 SCC 24, to determine whether Charter breaches had occurred, and concluded some of the evidence was admissible. Mr. Mossman was convicted on two counts. Mr. Meckert was acquitted on all counts. On summary conviction appeal, the Crown was successful and most of the Applicants’ claims were rejected; however, they were partially successful in having the verdicts set aside and a new trial ordered. The judge hearing the appeal to the B.C.S.C. agreed with the contextual framework used by the trial judge to assess Charter breaches, and found he had correctly admitted the observational evidence and the Spill Report. However, the appeal judge found the trial judge erred in admitting portions of the first statement, and the second statement should have been admitted. The Applicants sought further review by the B.C.C.A., but leave to appeal was denied. “The motion to join two Court of Appeal for British Columbia files in a single application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Intellectual Property: Trade-marks; Passing Off 

Dong, et al. v. Royal Pacific Real Estate Group Ltd., et al., 2020 BCCA 323 (39550)
Royal Pacific Real Estate Group Ltd. is the proprietor of a registered trade‑mark in Canada. Together with Royal Pacific Realty (Kingsway) Ltd., the entities are part of a group of companies in the business of real estate sales. Steven Dong was licenced to act as a real estate representative with Royal Pacific Kingsway from 2012 to 2013. He owned Steven Real Estate Developments, Maijan Holdings Inc., and Bliip Box Inc. Mr. Dong was provided with an oral or unwritten licence to use the marks at issue in the course of his employment. By the summer of 2012, Mr. Dong had created a website which combined information about Mr. Dong in his capacity as a sales representative of Royal Pacific Kingsway with a social media referral application called Bliip Box. The Real Estate Council of British Columbia (the “Council”) informed Mr. Dong certain aspects of his website did not comply with its regulations. A manager of several Royal Pacific Group brokerages reviewed the website and sent an email to Mr. Dong outlining what he considered to be the deficiencies in the website. Mr. Dong solicited business for Bliip Box using Royal Pacific’s trading names and Royal Pacific’s contact information and registered a new website, royalpacific.co. Royal Pacific expressed concern customers would confuse Mr. Dong’s additional services as being endorsed by Royal Pacific. Mr. Dong refused to take down his website or cease using the Royal Pacific trade names. The B.C.S.C. found Mr. Dong infringed Royal Pacific’s intellectual property and committed the tort of passing off. Mr. Dong’s appeal was unanimously dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Immigration: Study Permit Appeal 

Rahman v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2020 FCA 220 (39529)
A visa officer rejected the Applicant’s application for a study permit. The Applicant challenged that decision by way of an application for leave to apply for judicial review under s. 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Fed. Court dismissed the application for leave to commence an application for judicial review. The Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal. It was accepted for filing without prejudice to the Respondent to challenge the timelines or the legality of the appeal. The Respondent brought a motion under Rule 74 of the Federal Court Rules to quash the appeal and to remove the Notice from the record as there was no right of appeal from an order of the Fed. Court dismissing leave. The Fed. C.A. granted the Respondent’s motion, quashed the appeal and removed the Notice from the record. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Prisons: Habeas Corpus 

Snooks v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., 2020 QCCA 586 (39224)
The Applicant, who was an Indigenous person, was serving a sentence at a medium‑security penitentiary. After the Applicant was charged with aggravated assault against a fellow inmate, his case management team recommended an increase in his security classification and a transfer to a maximum‑security penitentiary. He was transferred first to a maximum‑security penitentiary and then to the Special Handling Unit (“SHU”). The Applicant filed an application for habeas corpus in the Criminal Division of the Qué. Superior Court, alleging his transfer to the SHU was an unlawful deprivation of his liberty. The Superior Court dismissed the application for habeas corpus. The Qué. C.A. found the transfer decision was an administrative decision and therefore civil in nature and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) applied in this case. Since the Applicant had not complied with the 10‑day time limit for appealing set out in art. 361 C.C.P., the Qué. C.A. found and declared the Applicant’s right to appeal had been forfeited and dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Prisons: Habeas Corpus 

Germa v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., 2020 QCCA 586 (39225)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Prisons: Habeas Corpus 

Paul v. Attorney General of Canada, et al., 2020 QCCA 632 (39240)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Tax: GAAR 

L’Agence du revenu du Québec v. Custeau, et al., 2020 QCCA 1496 (39537)
The Applicant, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”), was of the view the Respondents, Philippe Custeau and Charles Custeau, had carried out a series of transactions that included avoidance transactions, which had given rise to a tax benefit that was an abuse of ss. 517.1 and 570 of the Taxation Act. The ARQ made a tax assessment against each of them for the 2006 taxation year, which had the effect of adding a deemed dividend of $499,950 to the income of each for that year. Philippe Custeau and Charles Custeau believed GAAR did not apply in this case. They asked the Court of Québec to vacate the assessments made against them by the ARQ. The Court of Québec allowed the appeals from the tax assessments and vacated the notices of assessment. The ARQ appealed the trial judgment, but the Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Tax: Restaurants; Prescription 

Restaurant Le Relais de Saint-Jean inc., et al. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, et al., 2020 QCCA 823 (39434)
The Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”) conducted a tax audit of Restaurant Le Relais de Saint‑Jean inc. (“Restaurant”). On the basis of the audit, the ARQ issued a notice of assessment for the difference between the reported and the estimated income. It also claimed related taxes, interest and penalties. The Canada Revenue Agency later issued a notice of assessment against the Restaurant as well. The Restaurant sent notices of objection to the tax authorities. The Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) allowed the Restaurant’s appeal from the notices of assessment and cancelled the additional tax, finding the ARQ had used an arbitrary audit method not justified in the circumstances. The Restaurant and Argyris Chionis, who was in charge of managing its operations and who was its non‑apparent owner, filed a civil liability action against the ARQ and the CRA, alleging they had committed a fault and acted wrongfully in processing the Restaurant’s tax files. The Superior Court dismissed the Applicants’ action, finding most of the claims were prescribed and the Respondents were not at fault. The Qué. C.A. held the Applicants’ action was not prescribed and the starting point for prescription was the date of the TCC’s judgment. Nevertheless, it upheld the trial judge’s conclusions about the absence of fault and dismissed the 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.”

Tax: Motions to Strike 

Platt v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2020 ONCA (39471)
The Applicant owed the Canada Revenue Agency. The Applicant stated he and the CRA had a verbal agreement he would make monthly payments to the CRA to discharge the amount owing. The CRA froze the Applicant’s bank accounts. The Applicant commenced an action against the CRA in Small Claims Court. The CRA successful brought a motion to strike the Applicant’s action. The Applicant’s appeal of that decision was dismissed. The Ont. C.A. 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.”

Tax: Notices of Assessment 

Mann v. R., 2020 FCA (39486)
The Applicant taxpayer was issued notices of reassessment relating to numerous taxation years which resulted in taxes and penalties owing. The initial amounts owing were $5.5M but were eventually reduced to about $400K. The Applicant wanted to appeal this decision on the basis the assessment audit and review process constituted an abuse of process. The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the Applicant’s motion seeking dismissal of the taxation reassessment. The motion to strike the reply and grant the appeal was dismissed. A single judge of the Fed. C.A. dismissed the motion for filing a notice of appeal from the Tax Court decision. The Applicant’s subsequent motion sought direction to see if the Fed. C.A.’s order could be appealed to a three person panel. That motion was also 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 with costs.”

Tax: “Québec Shuffle” 

3295036 Canada Inc. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2020 QCCA 1435 (39496)
This case concerns a tax planning technique called the “Québec shuffle”. On March 8, 2011, the Respondent, the Agence du revenu du Québec (“ARQ”), made two assessments against the Applicant, 3295036 Canada Inc. (“3295036”), for the taxation years ending on September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2008. In the notice of assessment for the 2007 taxation year, the ARQ disallowed the carry­‑forward of a net capital loss of $805,964 that 3295036 had allegedly claimed mistakenly for the taxation year ending on September 30, 2000. For the 2008 taxation year, the ARQ disallowed the carry‑forward of a net capital loss of $3,635,667 that 3295036 had allegedly claimed mistakenly for the 2000 taxation year, and the ARQ added a taxable capital gain of $2,744,654 that 3295036 had allegedly failed to include in its income. In making the assessments in issue, the ARQ relied on the specific anti‑avoidance rule set out in s. 529.1 of the Taxation Act. However, 3295036 was of the view that rule did not apply in this case. Court of Québec: originating application to appeal tax reassessments of 3295036 Canada Inc. for taxation years ending on September 30, 2007 and September 30, 2008 dismissed. Qué. C.A.: appeal from trial judgment dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Universities: Expulsion 

Hrabovskyy v. University of Montréal, 2020 QCCA 1571 (39507)
While the Applicant was a student at the Respondent University of Montreal, a disciplinary committee found him guilty of various disciplinary offences and expelled him. The University’s Review Committee confirmed this decision. The Qué. Superior Court dismissed the Applicant’s application for judicial review of both decisions. The judge found the decisions were reasonable, well‑motivated and applied the relevant disciplinary by‑law of the University to the facts. The Qué. C.A. dismissed his motion for leave to appeal. “The miscellaneous motions are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”