Granted

Civil Litigation: Anti-SLAPP

Hansman v. Neufeld, 2021 BCCA 222 (39796)
The Applicant was a teacher and the president of the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation. Mr. Neufeld was an elected public school board trustee in British Columbia. The Minister of Education published resources for teachers for the promotion of inclusive environments, policies and procedures in schools regarding sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI 123”). In 2017, Mr. Neufeld made negative comments and criticisms about the implementation of the SOGI 123 materials, which were posted on his Facebook page. His comments attracted significant criticism and media attention. Mr. Hansman was interviewed about Mr. Neufeld’s post. Mr. Neufeld alleged Mr. Hansman defamed him in that interview, and in subsequent statements broadcasted and published in the press and online. Mr. Neufeld filed a defamation action against Mr. Hansman, identifying 11 specific publications in which Mr. Hansman allegedly made defamatory remarks Mr. Neufeld promoted hatred, was discriminatory against gay and transgender students, acted with malice, and presented a safety risk to students. Mr. Hansman applied to have Mr. Neufeld’s application dismissed pursuant to s. 4 of British Columbia’s Protection of Public Participation Act. The application judge granted the motion and dismissed the defamation action. This decision was overturned on appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
 

Criminal Law: Child Luring; Entrapment

Dare v. R., 2021 ONCA 327 (39871)
The Applicant, Temitope Dare, was arrested and charged with offences under ss. 172.1(1)(a) (child luring under 18), 172.1(1)(b) (child luring under 16), and 286.1(2) (communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor) of the Criminal Code. The charges arose out of Project Raphael designed by the York Regional Police — an undercover investigation that began in 2014 with the objective of reducing the demand for sexual services from juveniles in the region by targeting the “buyer side”. As part of the investigation, the police posted fake advertisements in the “escorts” section of an online classified advertising website. When individuals responded to the ads, an undercover officer posing as an escort would disclose in the ensuing text chat “she” was underage. Individuals who continued the chat and arranged sexual services and a price were directed to a hotel room to complete the transaction and were arrested and charged on their arrival. A jury found the Applicant guilty of all three offences. The trial judge stayed the convictions under ss. 172.1(1)(b) (child luring under 16) and 286.1(2) (communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor), pursuant to Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. The trial judge then dismissed the Applicant’s application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment. The Applicant’s appeal from the convictions and the ruling on entrapment 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 granted. The appeal is to be heard with the appeals Corey Daniel Ramelson v. Her Majesty the Queen (39664) and Erhard Haniffa v. Her Majesty the Queen (39803). The schedule for serving and filing the appeal documents will be set by the Registrar.”

Dismissed

Civil Litigation: Costs; Contempt

Kostic v. Alger, et al., 2021 ABCA 31 (39752)
The Applicant, Ms. Kostic, was sued by the Piikani Nation for allegedly mismanaging its investment funds. Ms. Kostic appealed a number of case management decisions related to the litigation, but her appeal was dismissed with costs in the sum of $92K, including $14,500 in favour of the Respondents Bruce Alger, Grant Thornton Limited, Grant Thornton Alger Inc. and Grant Thornton LLP (the “Grant Thornton Respondents”). The Grant Thornton Respondents began enforcement proceedings to realize their costs award. Ms. Kostic was found in contempt when she failed to provide the required financial report of debtor. It was determined at a further hearing Ms. Kostic had not purged her contempt, and the sanction imposed was to dismiss Ms. Kostic’s application to add the Grant Thornton Respondents as parties to the Piikani Nation litigation. Ms. Kostic was also unsuccessful in adding the Respondents Caron & Partners, Daniel Gilborn and Richard Gilborn as parties to the Piikani Nation litigation. Her subsequent 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 with costs to the respondents, Bruce Alger, Grant Thornton Limited, Grant Thornton Alger Inc. and Grant Thornton LLP.”
 

Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigants

Ubah v. Canadian National Resources Limited, et al., 2021 ABCA 5 (39757)
When the Applicant commenced proceedings against the Respondents, they objected on the ground it was a vexatious proceeding. The court concluded the action appeared to be an abusive proceeding as a collateral attack and the Applicant should be subject to interim court access restrictions. In a subsequent decision, the Applicant was ultimately found to be a vexatious litigant and further indefinite restrictions were imposed. The Applicant succeeded in obtaining leave to appeal on two issues arising from that decision. The Alta. C.A. struck from the lower court order the prohibitions on the Applicant commencing proceedings in the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal C.A., the Tax Court of Canada, the S.C.C., any Court outside of Alberta, or any Canadian administrative tribunal, without simultaneously providing a copy of three previous decisions of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Order imposing conditions on him as a vexatious litigant. “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. Martin J. took no part in the judgment.”
 

Contracts in Québec: Municipal; SCC Remand Powers

Construction Unibec inc. v. Ville de Saguenay, 2021 QCCA 560 (39702)
During the performance of a contract for the construction of a multipurpose centre, the Respondent, Ville de Saguenay (“City”), wanted some additional work done. A site instruction was issued, accompanied by specific plans. The Applicant, Construction Unibec inc., to which the construction contract had been awarded by resolution, sent the City a tender for $148,588.71 for the additional work. The tender was accepted by resolution. Unibec realized backfilling work, which it had not included in the tendered price, was required to complete the additional work. It was agreed the backfilling work would be done separately from the contract for the additional work with cost plus pricing based on the cost of materials and labour. On completion of the work, Unibec sent its final invoice for $297,241.10. The City refused to pay $148,652.39, the amount for the backfilling work. The Superior Court allowed Unibec’s motion to institute proceedings and ordered the City to pay Unibec $148,652.39 for the backfilling work. The Qué. C.A. dismissed Unibec’s motion to institute proceedings. The Supreme Court, pursuant to s. 43(1.1) of the Supreme Court Act, remanded the case forming the basis of the application for leave to appeal to the Québec C.A. for disposition in accordance with Montréal (Ville) v. Octane Stratégie inc., 2019 SCC 57. The Qué. C.A. affirmed the judgment it had rendered in 2019. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”


Criminal Law: DUI

McManus v. R., 2021 ABCA 177 (39801)
After failing a roadside test in a targeted stop, the Applicant was arrested. Two breath samples were obtained following breath demands. The Applicant argued the police failed to observe him for 15 minutes before the samples of his breath were provided into the approved instrument, as was required by their training. The Applicant also argued because of this failure, the manner of taking the samples was unreasonable, and gave rise to a breach of s. 8 of the Charter. The Applicant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit. The summary conviction appeal judge allowed the Applicant’s appeal, and ordered a new trial. The Alta. C.A. allowed the Crown’s appeal, and restored the conviction. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Evidence

Mills v. R., 2019 ONCA 940 (39779)
Mr. Mills was charged with first degree murder following a fatal shooting. Crown counsel alleged the shooting was gang-related and Mr. Mills belonged to a street gang known as M.O.B. Klick. The defence argued M.O.B. Klick was a legitimate rap group with no gang affiliation. The Crown was granted leave to admit into evidence videos of rap music in which Mr. Mills appears, and handwritten rap lyrics allegedly authored by Mr. Mills. A jury convicted Mr. Mills of first degree murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an 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.”
 

Criminal Law: Evidence; Trial Judge Conduct

Williams v. R., 2019 ONCA 940 (39787)
Mr. Williams was charged with second degree murder following a fatal shooting. Crown counsel alleged the shooting was gang related and Mr. Williams belonged to a street gang known as M.O.B. Klick. The defence argued M.O.B. Klick was a legitimate rap group with no gang affiliation. The Crown was granted leave to call a police officer to testify as an expert on street gangs. During trial, conflict between Mr. Williams’ counsel and the trial judge prompted the trial judge to repeatedly intervene and criticize counsel, sometimes using harsh language. A jury convicted Mr. Williams of second degree murder. The C.A. dismissed an 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.”
 

Criminal Law: Long-term Supervision Orders

L. v. R., 2020 QCCA 1774 (39585)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of long-term supervision orders. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”


Criminal Law: Mr. Big

W. v. R., 2020 ABCA 304 (39767)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of multiple Mr. Big operations. “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.”
 

Family Law: Support; Property & Debts

Savoie v. Savoie, 2021 NBCA 20 (39741)
The Applicant, Ms. Savoie, filed a petition for divorce in which the main issues were support for her and the division of property and debts. The Court of Queen’s Bench made orders granting a divorce, requiring the Respondent, Mr. Savoie, to pay Ms. Savoie $11,200 a month in support as of September 1, 2015 and for an indefinite period, and providing for the equal division of property and debts. Ms.  Savoie appealed, and Mr. Savoie filed a cross‑appeal. The N.B. C.A. dismissed the appeal and the cross‑appeal, as it was of the view the trial judge’s reasons were complete and contain no error. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Torts: Medmal

Conley, et al. v. Parliament, et al., 2021 ONCA 261 (39734)
Parliament was diagnosed with severe hydrocephalus when he was around four months old. He is now 22 years old and has cognitive and physical disabilities. His parents, the Respondents Kimberley York and John Parliament, sued the Applicants Dr. Conley and Dr. Park for negligence, alleging the Applicants delayed diagnosing and treating Cole’s hydrocephalus and this delay caused his brain damage. After a lengthy trial, the jury found the standard of care had been met by both doctors, and the trial judge accordingly dismissed the action. The Ont. C.A. allowed the Respondents’ appeal and ordered a new trial. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”