Criminal Law: Homicide

Hafizi v. R.2019 ONCA 2 (40250)

The Applicant went out with friends to an Ottawa nightclub in the Byward Market. While there, they clashed with a group of men. This led to an altercation. The Applicant was told to leave the nightclub. Sixteen minutes later, Mr. Niran from the other group left the nightclub alone. The Applicant opened the car door, ran towards Mr. Niran, and stabbed him multiple times. Mr. Niran died. After a trial by judge and jury, the Applicant was convicted of first degree murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the conviction appeal, but substituted a conviction for second degree murder. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal … is dismissed.”

Family Law: Names of Children

S.D.M. v. J.Y.G., 2022 QCCA 687 (40306)

There is a publication ban in this case; a publication ban on the party; certain information is not available to the public, in the context of one parent applying to change the children’s names post-divorce. “The application for leave to appeal … is dismissed with costs.

Provincial Offences: Speeding; Time Extensions

Larocque v. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions2022 QCCA 618 (40256)

Pierre Larocque received a statement of offence for driving at a speed of 76 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. The speed had been measured using a radar device with laser technology. Before his trial, Mr. Larocque sought to obtain from the prosecution some technical documents relating to the operation of the radar device allegedly used to estimate his speed. His motion was granted in part on an appeal from a conviction, certain documents were disclosed, and a new trial was then ordered. Following his second trial, Mr. Larocque was convicted in the Court of Québec and a $90 fine was imposed. A judge of the Québec Superior Court dismissed his appeal. Three months after the Superior Court’s decision, Mr. Larocque tried to appeal the decision and brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. A judge of the Qué. C.A. dismissed the motion. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The miscellaneous motions are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal … is dismissed.”

Real Property: Mortgages

Layes v. Layes2022 NSCA 48 (40220)

The Respondent, Rose Layes, brought an action seeking declarations and other relief based on her claim when she and her late husband put up their property as security for a loan to be advanced to their son, the Applicant, Kevin Layes, the Applicant agreed orally to pay the mortgage. The Applicant claimed the principle of abuse of process by re-litigation restricted the trial court’s ability to make findings because relevant findings had already been made in a previous proceeding. The trial judge found the core issues in the current proceeding and the previous proceeding were different. He added even if the core issues were the same, he would nonetheless permit re-litigation on the basis it would enhance rather than impeach the integrity of the judicial system to do so. The trial judge ordered the Respondent be released from any liability she might have had pursuant to the mortgage. The N.S. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed without costs. The application for leave to appeal … is dismissed with costs.”

Torts/Constitutional Law: Caps on Damages

Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General)2022 BCCA 163 (40291)

Through amendments to the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal Act and various regulations, the government of British Columbia gave the Civil Resolution Tribunal jurisdiction over the determination of: (a) entitlement to no-fault accident benefits payable under the IVA; (b) whether an injury is a “minor injury” under the B.C. Insurance (Vehicle) Act; and (c) liability and damages for personal injury of up to $50K. The provision specified matters over which the CRT would have exclusive jurisdiction or “specialized expertise”, and s. 16.1 of the CTRA specified when a court must stay a proceeding for determination by the CRT. Further amendments to the IVA created a new cap on the amount of non-pecuniary damages that could be awarded in claims for minor injuries. The Applicants brought an application for summary trial or judgment on the question of whether the grant of jurisdiction to the CRT offended s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The B.C.S.C. declared s. 16.1 and ss. 133(1)(b) and (c) of the CRTA unconstitutional and s. 16.1 is to be read down as it applies to accident claims other than under s. 133(1)(a). A majority of the B.C.C.A. allowed the appeal, holding the grant of jurisdiction passed both the Residential Tenancies and the core jurisdiction test and was constitutional. “The motion to join two Court of Appeal for British Columbia files in a single application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for an extension of time to file the applicants’ reply is granted. The motion to expedite consideration of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal … is dismissed with costs.”

Torts: MVA’s; Damages; Costs

Balogun v. Pandher2022 ABCA 160 (40281)

In 2003, the Applicant, Mr. Balogun, was injured in a MVA when his van was rear ended by the Respondent, Mr. Pandher. The same year, liability was determined summarily. In 2019, there was a trial to assess damages. The trial judge awarded damages to Mr. Balogun. She awarded him costs to the date of the first settlement offer that was better than the award at trial. She awarded costs to Mr. Pandher after that date. Mr. Balogun appealed both the damages award and the costs award. Mr. Pandher cross-appealed the costs award. The Alta. C.A. dismissed the appeals and allowed the cross-appeal. “The motions for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal and the reply are granted. The motion to join two Court of Appeal of Alberta files in a single application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal … is dismissed with costs to the respondent.”