Granted

Criminal Law: Sexual Interference; Child Luring; Mandatory Minimums

R. v. M.B.M., 2021 QCCA 1285 (39935)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of a charge of sexual interference and child luring, re mandatory minimums. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response to the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”

Dismissed

Class Actions: Film Production

Salna v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, et al., 2021 FCA 176 (39895)
The Respondents, all film production companies, filed an application in the Fed. Court against the Applicant, Mr. Salna, who is the internet account subscriber connected to an IP address identified by the Respondents as having infringed its works online. The Respondents then brought a motion for an order to certify its application against Mr. Salna as a Respondent class proceeding under the Federal Courts Rules. The Fed. Court dismissed the motion. The Fed. C.A. allowed the Respondents’ appeal of the certification decision in part. It held the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, there was an identifiable class of two or more persons, and the common issues the Respondents had set out were common questions of fact and law. However, on the issues of whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure and whether there was a suitable representative, it set aside the Fed. Court decision and returned the motion to the Fed. Court for reconsideration of those questions in light of its reasons. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: DUI; Right to Counsel

R. v. Drolet, 2021 QCCA 1421 (39939)
A restaurant called the police to report an intoxicated customer was leaving with his vehicle. Two police officers found the Respondent, Raymond Drolet, in the vehicle, which was running, and arrested him. The Respondent was informed of his rights and confirmed he wished to consult counsel. For reasons of safety, among other things, one of the police officers told the Respondent he could do so as soon as they were able and directed the Respondent to follow him to the police station in order to provide a breath sample. The Respondent categorically refused and, as a result, was released on a promise to appear. The Municipal Court dismissed the Respondent’s motion to exclude evidence, finding the right to counsel in s. 10(b) of the Charter had not been infringed. It convicted the Respondent of failure to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample made by a peace officer under s. 254 of the Criminal Code. The Superior Court dismissed the Respondent’s appeal, finding there were no grounds to intervene. The Qué. C.A. granted the motion for leave to appeal on two grounds of appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Superior Court and the Municipal Court, granted the motion to exclude evidence and acquitted Mr. Drolet. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Sexual Offences

M. v. R., 2021 BCCA 446 (40067)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual offences re foster children. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Insurance: Limitation Periods

Kumarasamy v. Western Life Assurance Company, 2021 ONCA 849 (40041)
The Applicant, Kamalavannan Kumarasamy, was injured in a car accident in August 2014; he has been unable to work since that time. Mr. Kumarasamy was late in filing a notice of claim for long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits with his insurer, the Respondent Western Life Assurance Company (“Western”). Mr. Kumarasamy never received Western’s letters asking him to file LTD claim forms; having received no such forms, Western advised Mr. Kumarasamy in June 2015 it was closing his claim file. In October 2016, Mr. Kumarasamy’s lawyers, though not yet retained for a potential LTD claim, wrote to Western and requested a copy of the claim file; Western responded by confirming the file had been closed. In February 2017, Mr. Kumarasamy signed a retainer with his lawyers for his LTD claim. Further correspondence was exchanged in March 2017, including the sending of Mr. Kumarasamy’s completed LTD claim forms to Western. In June 2017, Western wrote to Mr. Kumarasamy and his lawyers, advising him his LTD claim was denied, given the delay in filing his notice of claim. An internal appeal from this refusal of coverage was also denied. In June 2019, Mr. Kumarasamy’s lawyers issued a statement of claim against Western; in response, Western filed a motion seeking summary judgment. The Ont. Superior Court of Justice dismissed Western’s motion for summary judgment, finding Mr. Kumarasamy’s action was not statute‑barred by Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002. The Ont. C.A. allowed Western’s appeal, granted its motion for summary judgment, and dismissed Mr. Kumarasamy’s action against Western as being statute‑barred. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Landlord & Tenant: Lease Termintation

Agbodjalou v. Consultants EP7 inc., 2021 QCCA 1266 (39987)
The Applicant, Ms. Agbodjalou, had been renting a dwelling in Montréal since 2003. During the years that followed, the building was sold several times. On March 6, 2020, the new owner, Consultants EP7 inc. (the Respondent — “EP7”), filed an application with the Administrative Housing Tribunal (“AHT”) for resiliation of the lease, alleging arrears of unpaid rent, for the eviction of the Applicant and for recovery of the rent. The AHT granted EP7’s application, resiliated the Applicant’s lease, ordered her eviction and ordered her to pay $8,100, plus interest and indemnities. The Qué. Superior Court dismissed the Applicant’s application for J.R. of the AHT’s decision. A judge of the Qué. C.A. dismissed a motion for leave to appeal from the Superior Court’s decision. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion to appoint counsel is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Municipal Law: Property Assessment

Société en commandite Locoshop Angus, et al. v. Ville de Montréal, et al., 2021 QCCA 1217 (39898)
The Applicant Société en commandite Locoshop Angus (Locoshop) and the Applicants Société immobilière Imso inc. (Imso) and iWeb Technologies inc., operating as iWeb Group (formerly known as Iweb Group inc.) (iWeb) applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision in which the Qué. C.A. ruled in favour of the Respondent, Ville de Montréal (City), with respect to assessments of their respective immovables entered on the property assessment roll. The issue in the two leave applications relates to the concept of a movable that becomes immovable by being attached to an immovable, within the meaning of s. 1 of the Act respecting municipal taxation. For the immovables included in Locoshop’s unit of assessment, the dispute concerns equipment owned by its lessee, Ubisoft, that supplies air conditioning and electricity to a computer server room. For the immovable included in Imso’s unit of assessment, the dispute concerns equipment owned by its lessee, iWeb: an air conditioning system, a generator that ensures a continuous supply of electricity to servers in the event of a service breakdown, and electrical equipment also ensures the continuity of a hosting service. In the case involving Locoshop, the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ) held the equipment did not have to be entered on the property assessment roll because it was not permanently attached to the immovable, but in the case involving Imso and iWeb, the ATQ reached the opposite conclusion. Appeals to the Court of Québec from the ATQ’s decisions were filed by the City with respect to Locoshop’s immovables and by Imso and iWeb with respect to their immovables. The Court of Québec dismissed the City’s appeal but allowed the appeal of Imso and iWeb. The Superior Court dismissed the two applications for J.R. filed by the City, and the Qué. C.A. allowed the City’s two appeals. “The motion filed by Société en commandite Locoshop Angus to adduce new evidence is dismissed without costs. The application for leave to appeal, filed by Société en commandite Locoshop Angus….is dismissed with costs. The application for leave to appeal, filed by Société immobilière Imso inc., iWeb Technologies inc., operating as iWeb Group (formerly known as Iweb Group inc.)…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Tax: Employee Trusts

McNeeley v. Canada, 2021 FCA 218 (40026)
Taxpayers received distributions of shares from a corporation’s employee trust and, in calculating income tax payable, they applied rules applicable to a prescribed trust. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed the taxpayers and applied rules applicable to employee benefit plans. The Minister deleted reported taxable capital gains and included in each taxpayer’s income an amount equal to the fair market value of the shares. The taxpayers filed unsuccessful notices of objection and their appeals to the Tax Court of Canada and the Fed. C.A. were dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”