Family Law: Child Protection; Custody

B.J.T., et al. v. J.D, 2020 PECA 14 (39558)
There is a publication ban in this case; certain information is not available to the public, in the context of a child protection matter as to custody of a child. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause. The hearing of the appeal is to be expedited and the Acting Registrar will set the dates for filing the appeal documents.”

Family Law: Custody; Relocation; Support

Kreke v. Alansari, 2020 SKCA 122 (39567)
The parties separated after ten years of marriage. They had one child together and the Applicant had two children from a previous marriage. The Sask. C.A. overturned the trial judge’s decision that awarded joint custody of the one child, with primary care to the Applicant and allowed her to relocate within the province with that child. It also reduced the amount of spousal support awarded to her. A new trial was ordered on the issues of custody, access, primary care and relocation. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion to join two Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan files in a single application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument is granted. The motion to strike by the respondent is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”


Civil Procedure: Amending Pleadings

Polla v. Croatian (Toronto) Credit Union Limited, 2020 ONCA 818 (39586)
The Applicant commenced an action to recover his lost investment in the Croatian (Toronto) Credit Union Limited. The trial judge refused to grant the Applicant leave to amend his statement of claim, on the basis the amendment asserted a new claim for statutory misrepresentation that was statute barred and the Respondents would be irreparably prejudiced if the amendment were permitted. The Applicant’s action was dismissed. The C.A. dismissed the appeal.  “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Civil Procedure: Limitation Periods; Refugees

Utah v. Canada (Attorney General), et al., 2020 FCA 224 (39582)
Mr. Utah brought an action for damages in Fed. Court, alleging a federal government officer failed to process his request for refugee protection in a timely manner, causing injury. The main cause of action was abuse of public office or misfeasance in public office. The Respondents, the Attorney General of Canada and the federal government officer, moved for summary dismissal on the ground the limitation period expired before Mr. Utah started his action. The relevant limitation period is found in s. 3(1)(a) of Alberta’s Limitations Act, requiring an action within two years of when they know or ought to know injury caused by a defendant has been suffered and warrants bringing a proceeding. The Fed. Court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, concluding the materials filed suggested Mr. Utah did not know the immigration officer had not processed his refugee claim until he received a response to an access to information request, the same month he filed his statement of claim. The Fed. C.A. allowed the appeal and dismissed Mr. Utah’s action; it concluded the limitation period started to run in January 2016, when Mr. Utah received a message from another immigration officer informing him his application for refugee status was not put forward due to errors made by previous officers; his action was allegedly not started within the two‑year period. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Contracts: Breach; Cancellation

Caliber Midstream GP LLC v. Bidell Equipment LP, 2020 ABCA 478 (39591)
Bidell Equipment won a bid to manufacture compressor units for a natural gas processing plant owned and operated by Caliber Midstream, et al. It commenced work but the order was cancelled before the work was completed. Bidell commenced an action for unpaid amounts it claimed Caliber owed due to the cancelled contract and for storage fees, interest, and indemnity costs. The trial judge awarded $11,520.497.70. The Alta. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent in accordance with the tariff of fees and disbursements set out in Schedule B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Criminal Law: Disclosure

Robinson v. R., 2020 ABCA 361 (39583)
The Applicant was on trial for the murder of his estranged wife. The Applicant applied for a mistrial based on the failure of the Crown to disclose documents re witnesses’ claims for restitution. The application for a mistrial was dismissed. After a trial by judge and jury, the Applicant was convicted of second degree murder. The Applicant’s appeal was 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.”

Tax: Filings After Estimated Assessments

6075240 Canada Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue), 2020 CAF 194 (39553)
6075240 Canada Inc. was a taxpayer that failed to file an income tax return for the 2010 and 2012 taxation years. C.R.A. made an estimated assessment for those years. More than three years later, the taxpayer tried to file income tax returns for the years in question. The Minister refused to process the returns on the basis a reassessment could not be made after the “normal reassessment period” defined in the Income Tax Act. Judicial review was filed with the Fed. Court, which dismissed the application. The appeal from that decision 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.”

Workers’ Comp.: Injunctions; Contempt

Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., et al. v. Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 365 (39580)
In 2012, the Respondent, the Workers’ Compensation Board filed a petition, seeking an injunction restraining the Applicants from contravening the B.C. Workers Compensation Act and its regulations. When the petition came for hearing, the Applicants sought an adjournment and consented to an interim injunction restraining their conduct until the petition was heard. The Board applied to have the Applicants found in contempt of the interim injunction, which continued to apply. The Board also sought a permanent injunction to prevent the Applicants from continuing in the industry, pursuant s. 198 of the Workers Compensation Act. The judge found the Applicants guilty of seven counts of contempt for breaching the interim injunction and 21 distinct breaches of the Workers Compensation Act and its regulations. She granted an injunction prohibiting the Applicants from carrying on in the asbestos abatement or inspection industry for an indefinite period or until further order of the court.  The B.C.C.A. dismissed the Applicants’ appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”