Construction Law: Mandatory Minimums

Bédard v. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, 2021 QCCA 377 (39656)
The Applicant, Raynald Bédard, set up a project management company named “Solutions Gestion Design”. The services it offered included managing and supervising construction work, preparing plans and estimates and hiring professionals; neither Mr. Bédard nor his company carried out any construction work. In 2013, a couple retained Solutions Gestion Design for work on a bathroom in their home. While the work was under way, Mr. Bédard and the professional who had been hired noted the locations of the drain and the shower did not correspond to the locations in the manufacturer’s assembly instructions. Because the hired professional did not have the necessary tools to correct the situation, Mr. Bédard took the initiative to rent the demolition equipment needed to do so. Following that decision, however, relations between Mr. Bédard and his clients deteriorated to such an extent the service agreement was resiliated. Some time after the agreement was terminated, Mr. Bédard received a statement of offence under section 46 of the Québec Building Act for having [translation]“acted as a building contractor by carrying out construction work or having construction work carried out without holding a current licence for that purpose”. He was found guilty of that offence in 2016. But after Mr. Bédard filed a re-re-amended notice of intention under art. 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which he asked the court for, in particular, a declaration the sentence provided for in s. 197.1 of the Building Act is unconstitutional, the Court of Québec declared the $10,841 mandatory minimum sentence provided for in s. 197.1 was of no force or effect with respect to Mr. Bédard and sentenced him to pay a $50 fine. The Superior Court allowed the appeal and the C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Extradition: Child Porn

R.J.T. v. Canada (Attorney General) on Behalf of the United States of America, et al, 2021 ABCA 95 (39681)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of extradition for alleged child porn. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”