Criminal Law: Publication Bans

La Presse inc. v. Silva 2022 QCCA 1006 (40175)
Certain information is not available to the public, in the context of a media application to lift a prohibition re publication/broadcasting/transmission. “The motion of withdrawal of counsel is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”


Class Actions: Telecoms

TELUS Communications Inc. v. Nelson, 2021 ONCA 751 (39957)
The Respondent commenced a proposed class action against the Applicant (Telus) on behalf of Telus customers, excluding business customers, who between January 6, 2016 and October 1, 2018 cancelled their Wireless Service Agreements with Telus. She claimed damages pursuant to s. 72 (1) of the Telecommunications Act and sought refunds pursuant to sections 16 and 17 of the Wireless Services Agreement Act (WSAA). She alleged the class members are entitled to pro‑rated refunds of prepaid charges because they were overcharged contrary to the Telecommunications Act, the WSAA and the Telecom Regulatory Policy 2013‑271 the Wireless Code of the CRTC. In response to a motion by the Respondent for certification of a class action, Telus brought a cross motion. It argued the WSAA is ultra vires the province of Ontario under the Constitution Act, 1867, Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict, c. 3, ss. 91, 92 (10)(a) or, alternatively, that it is inoperative pursuant to the constitutional law doctrines of paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity. Telus also sought to have the Respondent’s action stayed or dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, arguing the CRTC, and not the superior court, has substantive jurisdiction over the claim. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held the Respondent has a certifiable class action to advance a claim under the WSAA but not a claim for damages related to the Wireless Code of the Telecommunications Act. The Ont. C.A. dismissed Telus’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Criminal Law: Post-Offence Conduct

Staples v. R., 2022 ONCA 266 (40200)
The Applicant’s father and sister, Bill and Rhonda, went missing. Five months later, their badly decomposed bodies were found in the back of Bill’s truck at a Park ‘N Fly at Pearson Airport. The Crown’s theory was the Applicant killed his father and his sister in order to inherit his father’s estate which was valued at over $2.1 M. Several witnesses testified they saw the Applicant crying when Bill and Rhonda had been missing for only a few days. The Applicant’s ex-wife testified he was crying and sweating and he smelled of perspiration, something she said never occurred. After a trial by judge and jury, the Applicant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the conviction appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Robbery

R. v. Iron, 2022 SKCA (40177)
There was a robbery at a jewelry store. The only issue at trial was the identity of the robber. There were two eyewitnesses and video surveillance. A police officer provided recognition evidence. The Respondent was convicted of robbery and a violation of his undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The Respondent was found to be a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. The Sask. C.A. concluded the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, and could only be cured by an acquittal from the bench. The Sask. C.A. stated the sentence appeal was rendered moot. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Constitutional law: Division of Powers; Telecoms

Bell Canada v. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (Office de la protection du consommateur), 2022 QCCA 408 (40193)
In February 2015, two charges were brought by the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DCPP) against the Applicant (Bell) for contravention of s. 214.8 of the Québec Consumer Protection Act. Bell defended itself in part by arguing the CPA provision was constitutionally invalid, inapplicable and inoperable, and was ultra vires the province as it interferes with the core federal jurisdiction over telecommunications and conflicts with the purpose of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. The Court of Québec held the impugned provision was unconstitutional on the basis of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy, and declared the provision inapplicable to and inoperative against the Applicant. Bell was acquitted of the offences. The Superior Court of Québec allowed in part the Respondents’ appeal. The court determined the impugned provision was within the jurisdiction of the province and applicable and enforceable against the Applicant, except under certain circumstances for which it was declared inoperative for the period following the adoption by the CRTC of the 2013 Wireless Code. Bell brought an appeal to reverse the judgment and the Respondents appealed the decision on the potential inoperability of s. 214.8 of the CPA. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal by Bell and allowed the Respondents’ appeal for the purpose of deleting and modifying portions of the lower court order. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Attorney General of Quebec. Jamal J. took no part in the judgment.”

Constitutional law: Division of Powers; Telecoms

Telus Communications Inc. v. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (Office de la protection du consommateur), 2022 QCCA 408 (40192)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Attorney General of Quebec. Jamal J. took no part in the judgment.”

Family Law: Family Law Issues; Bankruptcy

Bowes v. Bowes, 2022 NLCA 5 (40124)
The Applicant and Respondent were married in 2001 and separated in 2013. They have five children together. In March 2014, the Applicant commenced an application for divorce, child and spousal support, custody, access and division of property. In October 2014, the Respondent made an assignment into bankruptcy. In two separate decisions, the trial judge first made an order with respect to custody, access and support. Following additional written submissions, the trial judge resolved the parties’ outstanding issues relating to division of property and apportionment of debt. The Applicant’s appeal was allowed in part. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family Law in Québec: Custody; Child Support; Family Patrimony

C.J. v. G.P. 2022 QCCA 92 (40145)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a publication ban on the party. Certain information not available to the public in the context of family law litigation. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Torts: Snowmobiles; Evidence Admissibility

Abbott v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation, 2022 SKCA 23 (40163)
Tracy George Abbott was killed while operating his snowmobile, after striking a guy wire attached to a power pole owned by the Respondent, Saskatchewan Power Corporation (“SPC”).  The Applicants, the estate of Tracy George Abbott along with his widow (together “the Abbotts”), brought an action in negligence against SPC. The Abbotts applied for summary judgment; in dismissing their claim, the Court of Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan determined certain documents, including Royal Canadian Mounted Police reports, were inadmissible as evidence because they had not been properly authenticated. The Abbotts appealed the decision and brought a fresh evidence application before the Sask. C.A. The Sask. C.A. dismissed the application and the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”