Corporations: Oppression Remedy

Saunder v. 360373 Alberta Ltd, et al., 2021 ABCA 222 (39821)
Dr. Singh and Mr. Saunder executed a Letter of Agreement pursuant to which a corporation was created to buy and manage an apartment building. Dr. Singh took 75 per cent of the issued shares of the company and Mr. Saunder took 25 per cent. Subsequent share issuances reduced the percentage of shares owned by Mr. Saunder.  Mr. Saunder commenced an action claiming the conduct was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, and unfairly disregarded his interests. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the action. The Alta. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Criminal Law: Opinion Evidence; Jury Charge

Abdullahi v. R., 2021 ONCA 82 (40049)
At a trial before judge and jury, the Appellant, Ahmed Abdullahi was convicted of various gun‑related offences. A majority of the Ont. C.A. dismissed the three grounds the appellant raised pertaining to his conviction appeal. The majority rejected his argument the trial judge erred in admitting the opinion evidence of the translator regarding portions of intercepted communications. The majority also held the trial judge did not err in failing to charge the jury adequately on the definition of “criminal organization” in s. 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code or in charging the jury they could consider certain after the fact conduct. In dissent, Paciocco J.A. only disagreed on one ground of the conviction appeal: he would have concluded the trial judge erred by failing to adequately charge the jury on the “criminal organization” definition in s. 467.1(1) and would have therefore set aside the appellant’s conviction for the count setting out the offence at s. 467.11 of the Criminal Code and ordered a new trial on that charge. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault

A-R v. R., 2021 NSCA 86 (39995)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Insurance: Duty to Defend

Co-operators General Insurance Company v. Hemlow Estate, 2021 ONCA 908 (40071)
The deceased, John Hemlow, was killed in a workplace accident that caused extensive property damage at the location where he was working. The company suffering the property damage sued the Respondent, the estate of John Hemlow, as well as the company that retained him to do the work. Mr. Hemlow had an insurance policy with the Applicant, Co‑operators General Insurance Company, that excluded coverage for damage caused by “pollutants”. The Applicant insurer’s position was this provision applied to the workplace accident and it refused to defend the claim on behalf of the Respondent estate. The Respondent brought an application seeking a declaration the Applicant insurer had a duty to defend the action. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the Respondent estate’s application and found the action had to be defended. The Ont. C.A. unanimously dismissed the Applicant insurer’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Torts: Negligence

Adam, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc., 2021 ONCA 891 (40029)
Five days prior to her death a five‑year old child received a vaccine called Arepanrix, which was manufactured and distributed by the Respondent, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”). Arepanrix was designed to protect against the H1N1 influenza, known as the “swine flu”. An autopsy concluded the cause of death was unascertained, with sudden arrhythmic death syndrome not excluded. The investigating coroner found the most likely cause of death was sudden arrhythmic death syndrome. However, the Paediatric Death Review Committee of the Office of the Chief Coroner ultimately classified Amina’s cause of death as “undetermined”. The child’s family believed the vaccine had caused their daughter’s death. They commenced an action against GSK, Dr. Christine J. Ledesma‑Cadhit, their family physician who had administered the vaccine to Amina, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada, and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario, alleging Arepanrix had caused their daughter’s death. Prior to trial, the Applicants discontinued the action against Dr. Ledesma‑Cadhit, and in 2014 the action was dismissed against the two government defendants: 2014 ONSC 5726. The trial judge dismissed the action against GSK. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Universities: Access to Information

Oleynik v. Memorial University of Newfoundland, et al., 2021 NLCA 56 (40033)
The Applicant filed several Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act requests for access to records from the Respondent university pertaining to a workplace complaint and its investigation. The Applicant was not satisfied with the response to his ATIPPA requests, so he made an access complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Commissioner investigated and issued a report recommending the university release certain of the requested records. The university responded but the Applicant was not satisfied and commenced an originating application seeking J.R. of the response. The multiple interlocutory decisions flow from this appeal. The four interlocutory decisions deal with procedural and evidentiary matters on uncompleted matters that continue to be case managed. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the interlocutory applications (save for ordering limited access to “personal information” redactions). The appeal to the NL C.A. was also dismissed. “The motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument is granted. The miscellaneous motions are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Memorial University of Newfoundland.”