Municipal Law: Expropriation

Annapolis Group Inc. v. Halifax Regional Municipality, 2021 NSCA 3 (39594)
Annapolis Group Inc. commenced an action against Halifax Regional Municipality. It claimed in part the municipality was obstructing its attempts to develop its land while at the same time encouraging the public to use its land as a park and this is de facto expropriation. Halifax Regional Municipality applied for summary judgment dismissing the de facto expropriation part of the claim. A motions judge denied the motion. The C.A. granted an appeal and dismissed the claim of de facto expropriation.  “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause”


Civil Procedure: Constitutional Challenges; Injunctions

A.C. and J.F. v. Alberta, 2021 ABCA 24 (39551)
AC and JF were receiving benefits under Alberta’s Support, Financial Assistance program when the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Amendment Regulation, AR 8/2020, reduced the upper age of eligibility to participate in the program from 24 years to 22 years of age. AC and JF commenced an action claiming the change is a breach of fiduciary duty and breaches of the Charter. A motions judge ordered an interlocutory injunction staying the legislative amendment until the trial is resolved. The C.A. granted an appeal and set aside the interlocutory injunction. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Civil Procedure: Settlements

Houston Engineering & Drafting Inc. v. Neilas (799 College St) Inc., et al., 2020 ONCS 496 (39485)
Houston Thomas Engio was a licenced engineer, and the sole director of Houston Engineering and VN Engineers. The Respondents were the owner of a condominium property, and the construction management company retained for construction services. The Respondents brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement between them. The motion judge granted the motion. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, and 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.”

Class Actions: Telecoms; Disclosure

Masson, et al. v. Telus Mobilité, 2020 QCCA 1546 (39562)
The Applicants brought a class action seeking the reimbursement of fees paid to the Respondents for the early termination of their telecommunications service contracts. In 2017, the trial judge dismissed the class action. In June 2019, the Qué. C.A. allowed the action in part and found the termination clauses to be abusive. However, it held the collective recovery sought by the Applicants was not appropriate; it therefore ordered individual recovery instead and referred the case back to the trial judge to determine the terms of reimbursement. In the spring of 2020, the parties proposed a list of matters to be discussed with respect to the execution of the C.A.’s 2019 judgment ordering individual reimbursement. In particular, the Applicants wanted to know the total amount paid in contract termination fees. The Superior Court judge dismissed the Applicants’ motion to obtain financial information from the Respondents. In the C.A., the Applicants brought two motions: a motion for leave to appeal the trial judge’s most recent decision, and a motion in revocation of the C.A.’s 2019 judgment ordering individual recovery. The C.A. unanimously dismissed both motions. “The applicants’ 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.”

Class Actions: Telecoms; Fixed-Term Contract Renewals

Télébec v. 9238-0831 Québec inc. (Caféier-Boustifo), 2020 QCCA 1720 (39579)
9238‑0831 Québec inc., operating as Caféier‑Boustifo (“Boustifo”), entered into a contract for landline telephone and Internet services with Telebec, Limited Partnership (“Telebec”). The contract included an automatic renewal clause. In addition, Telebec’s general tariff provided for fees in the event of unilateral resiliation by the customer. Telebec informed Boustifo its contract would be expiring in March 2016 and, absent notice to the contrary, the contract would be renewed on the same conditions. Having received no notice Boustifo intended not to renew the contract, Telebec sent it a letter indicating its contract had been renewed. In April 2018, Boustifo resiliated its landline telephone contract. Telebec then billed it for $1,474.37, plus tax, in resiliation fees, but Boustifo refused to pay. Boustifo applied for authorization to institute a class action in nullity and in damages against Telebec in order to sanction business practices relating to the imposition of contract resiliation fees and to the renewal of fixed-term contracts. The Québec Superior Court granted the application. Telebec appealed against the application judge’s decision, but the Québec C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Homicide

Egal v. R., 2020 ONCA 106 (39618)
A man was beaten by four assailants and fatally stabbed during the assault. Mr. Egal was charged with second degree murder and tried jointly with three co‑accused. Counsel for one co‑accused cross‑examined a witness on something the latter said during a police interview, if believed, was prejudicial to Mr. Egal. The charge to the jury included instructions on the mental element of second degree murder. The jury convicted Mr. Egal of second degree murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family Law: Custody; Access; Support

Palombi v. Van, 2020 ONCA (39575)
The parties were married and had two children together. They separated in 2010. A number of issues went to trial, after which the trial judge issued a final order on custody, access, child support and related matters. The Applicant filed an appeal in the Divisional Court and, later, a motion to transfer his appeal to the Ont. C.A. The Divisional Court dismissed his motion and his appeal. The C.A. refused leave to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs in the fixed amount of $5,000.00.”

Municipal Law: Assessment

Saskatoon (City) v. Brandt Properties Ltd., 2021 SKCA 19 (39593)
The Respondent, Brandt Properties Ltd., represented owners of certain large warehouses located in the City of Saskatoon. The city assessor valued the warehouses using a model that differentiated between locations north and south of 51st street. The owners challenged the municipal taxation of these properties. They contended the city’s assessment model was based on an artificial distinction in location that had no connection to the market value of their properties when compared to other comparable properties. Before the City’s Board of Revision, an expert testified the market for warehouses did not act differently north or south of 51st street. The Board of Revision was not persuaded the assessment model was in error. The Saskatchewan Municipal Board Assessment Appeals Committee dismissed the owners’ appeal. The Sask. C.A. granted leave to appeal. On appeal, it concluded the Appeals Committee erred in law in its review of the Board of Revision’s treatment of the owners’ evidence and erred by failing to grapple with arguments made by the owners the assessment model was not based on value-driving characteristics as demanded by The Cities Act. It remitted the matter back to the Appeals Committee for determination in accordance with its judgment. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Professions: Discipline; Delay

Duchesneau v. Ordre des podiatres du Québec, 2020 QCCA 1516 (39549)
In July 2016, the Applicant was charged by the Ordre des podiatres du Québec with having contravened s. 188.1 of the Professional Code, CQLR, c. C‑26, when he was a director of the “Clinique du pied M‑D” company. In March 2019, he filed a motion for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11 (b) of the Charter. The motion judge reviewed the delays, concluded the net delay was under the 18‑month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and dismissed the motion. The Superior Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, as it agreed the net delay was under the presumptive ceiling. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s motion for 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.”