Charter Litigation: Covid Restrictions
Turmel v. R., 2022 FCA 166 (40520)
Mr. Turmel alleged Canada’s COVID-19 restrictions were unconstitutional and breached ss. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of the Charter. Canada sought to strike the claim, or in the alternative, an order requiring Mr. Turmel to provide security for costs. The motion to strike was granted and Mr. Turmel’s claim was struck without leave to amend. The Fed. Court and the Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeals. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Alghmadi v. Ian LeBlanc, et al., 2022 ONCA 687 (40511)
Ms. Alghmadi refused to vacate a rented property and a dispute with the homeowners led to a physical altercation. Ms. Alghmadi commenced three separate actions against multiple parties including the homeowners, police officers and government agencies. The litigation led to a multiplicity of motions and related proceedings. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a motion declaring Ms. Alghmadi to be a vexatious litigant and restricted continuance of any proceedings against several defendants without leave. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Carter v. Information and Privacy Commissioner, et al., 2022 ABQB 517 (40502)
The lower court issued a vexatious litigant order requiring the Applicant to obtain permission, or leave of the Court of King’s Bench to initiate and continue litigation and conduct certain tribunal activities and processes. Subsequent to this order, the lower court received a packet of materials from the Applicant. It was reviewed and the request to initiate proceedings was refused. “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.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Richardson v. Seventh-Day Adventist Church, et al., 2022 FCA (40519)
The Federal Court declared Mr. Richardson and those acting as his proxies and agents and those representing his interests, including DSR Karis Consulting Inc. and Robert Cannon, vexatious litigants. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeals, noting the orders should not be subject to reconsideration, amendment or variation. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Battlefords Seventh-Day Adventist Church, James Kwon, Mazel Holm, Gary Lund, Dawn Lund, Jeannie Johnson, Ciprian Bolah, Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference, Michael Collins, Matrix Law Group, Clifford Holm, Patricia J. Meiklejohn, Kimberley A. Richardson, and the Attorney General of Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police).”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
DSR Karis Consulting Inc. v. Seventh-Day Adventist Church, et al., 2022 FCA (40523)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Battlefords Seventh-Day Adventist Church, James Kwon, Mazel Holm, Gary Lund, Dawn Lund, Jeannie Johnson, Ciprian Bolah, Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference, Michael Collins, Matrix Law Group, Clifford Holm, Patricia J. Meiklejohn, Kimberley A. Richardson, and the Attorney General of Canada (Royal Canadian Mounted Police).”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation; Restraining Orders
Hok v. The Honourable Justice D.L. Shelley, et al., 2021 ABCA 321 (40483)
Ms. Hok is subject to a vexatious litigant order of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. She is prohibited from initiating or continuing litigation without leave of that court. In July 2021, the court granted a restraining order against Ms. Hok. Ms. Hok sought, and was denied, leave to file an application for a stay of the restraining order pending an appeal. Following subsequent correspondence with the court, Ms. Hok was ordered to pay a penalty pursuant to the rule 10.49 of Alberta Rules of Court for contravening the rules of court. Ms. Hok’s application for leave to appeal from the penalty order was dismissed by a justice of the Alta. C.A. “The motion for an extension of time to serve the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Procedure: Small Claims
Kawakami v. Brayer, 2021 BCCA 413 (40615)
Applicant Ms. Eiko Kawakami brought an action in negligence against her former lawyer, Respondent Todd Brayer, in Small Claims Court. Her claim was dismissed at a settlement conference on the basis it had virtually no chance of succeeding. The B.C.S.C. dismissed her J.R. application on the basis of delay but held, in the alternative, the dismissal of the small claims action at the settlement conference was reasonable. Ms. Kawakami’s appeal to the B.C.C.A. 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.”
Contracts: Small Claims
TotalUp Inc. v. De Marinis, 2022 ONCA (40524)
The Applicant, TotalUp Inc., and the Respondent, Vince De Marinis, entered into a contractual arrangement to lease or supply gaming tables to a casino. After a dispute arose between the parties with respect to how to divide up the money received from the casino, TotalUp sued Mr. De Marinis, who then brought his own claim. The Small Claims Court dismissed TotalUp’s claim, entered judgment for $9,413.82 in favour of Mr. De Marinis in his claim, and awarded costs to Mr. De Marinis in the amount of $1K. TotalUp appealed both decisions. The Divisional Court allowed TotalUp’s appeal, noting the Small Claims Court had made a calculation error. The Small Claims Court order on TotalUp’s claim was set aside, and judgment was instead entered in favour of TotalUp. The Small Claims Court order in Mr. De Marinis’ claim was also set aside. However, TotalUp was ordered to pay Mr. De Marinis his costs of the appeal, in the amount of $1K (the judgment awarded to TotalUp could be set off against this costs award in favour of Mr. De Marinis). The Ont. C.A. then unanimously dismissed TotalUp’s application for leave to appeal the Divisional Court costs order, with costs fixed in the amount of $1,5K. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Creditors-Debtor/Corporate: Garnishment; Corporate Veil
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd, et al. v. Air India Ltd, et al. 2022 QCCA 1264 (40462)
The Applicants are past or present creditors of the Republic of India pursuant to two foreign arbitral awards. Pending the homolgation of those awards they successfully applied to a Québec court for a seizure before judgment by garnishment of the funds belonging to both Air India Ltd. and the Airport Authority of India (AAI) held by the IATA. They did so on the basis Air India and AAI are the alter egos of India and their assets could satisfy the execution of arbitration awards made in their favour against India. The Superior Court of Québec granted an application by AAI to quash the seizure judgment relating to it but dismissed in part the application by Air India to quash and stay the seizure before judgment by garnishment. The court reduced the seizure to 50% of the funds of Air India held by the IATA, and authorized the release of the other 50% of the funds to Air India. Th Québec C.A. allowed Air India’s appeal, reversed the judgment for seizure of funds held by IATA, and granted Air India’s motion to quash the seizure judgment. The court found the facts alleged were not sufficient to establish one of the situations which justify piercing the corporate veil under article 317 of the C.C.Q. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Air India, Ltd.”
Criminal Law: Alleged Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
S.B.C. v. R., 2022 ONCA 171 (40342)
There is a publication ban in this case, a publication ban on the party, in the context of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. “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: Firearm Storage
Rana v. R., 2022 ONCA (40517)
Police responded to Mr. Rana’s phone calls to 911 seeking assistance during which Mr. Rana stated he was armed with a hand gun and he might kill a man in his home. Police asked to see the firearm and its location. Ms. Rana retrieved a gun box from under laundry in a bedroom closet. The gun box did not have a lock and it contained a restricted firearm that did not have a trigger lock. Mr. and Ms. Rana testified it was normally stored in a locked safe to which only Ms. Rana had a key and Mr. Rana did not know where the key was kept. Mr. Rana, the licenced owner of the firearm, was found guilty of storage of a firearm in contravention of s. 6 of the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations. He was granted an absolute discharge. He was found not guilty of careless storage of a firearm. Section 491(1) of the Criminal Code mandated forfeiture of the firearm. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: First Degree Murder
Moore v. R., 2020 ONCA 827 (40253)
Four men were fatally shot in three unconnected shootings. Mr. Moore was charged with all four murders and tried before a jury. An application to sever one charge was dismissed. The Crown’s case was circumstantial and in part relied on evidence of Mr. Williams, an unsavoury witness whose testimony required a Vetrovec warning. The Crown’s case also relied on intercepted phone and text messages, Mr. Moore’s rap lyrics, after-the-fact conduct, evidence connecting Mr. Moore to the two handguns used in the shootings, forensic evidence, and the Crown’s theory of motive. A jury convicted Mr. Moore on four counts 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 motion to appoint counsel is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Fisheries; Summary Dismissal of Appeal
Landry v. R., 2022 NBCA 37 (40429)
In the New Brunswick Provincial Court, the Applicant, Ms. Landry, was convicted of an offence under the federal Fisheries Act. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed her appeal. The Applicant then appealed to the N.B.C.A. At the Respondent’s request, the Registrar referred the Applicant’s notice of appeal to the C.A. for consideration under s. 685 of the Criminal Code which permits the summary dismissal of an appeal based on an unfounded ground of law. The N.B.C.A. was of the view this provision applied and dismissed the appeal summarily. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Habeas Corpus
Codina v. Grand Valley Institution for Women, 2021 ONCA 877 (40627)
Ms. Codina was convicted of breaches of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and sentenced to 7 years. She applied for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the warrant of committal. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the writ in summary judgment proceedings. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed. Jamal J. took no part in the judgment.”
Criminal Law: Victims of Crime Compensation
Bouchard v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2018 ONCA (40541)
Applicant Nicole Bouchard was found by the Respondent Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to be a victim of a crime of violence under the Ontario Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, in relation to multiple incidents occurring between 1971 and 1990. After a 2008 hearing, the Board awarded Ms. Bouchard certain amounts for pain and suffering, and for past therapy expenses. In 2013 she sought to vary the Board’s order to obtain compensation for recently incurred physiotherapy treatment expenses. Based on a lack of medical evidence connecting Ms. Bouchard’s recent need for physiotherapy to the crimes of violence committed between 1971 and 1990, the Board denied the variation request. Ms. Bouchard unsuccessfully sought review of that decision by the Board. However, following subsequent variation requests, the Board varied its original order to include an amount for future counselling and treatment by a psychologist, but dismissed Ms. Bouchard’s request for past and future physiotherapy treatment expenses. Ms. Bouchard appealed to the Divisional Court. Her appeal was dismissed. The Ont. C.A. dismissed her motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court’s judgment. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Employment Law: Disclosure Protection
Agnaou v. Public Prosecution Service of Canada, et al., 2022 FCA 140 (40391)
The Applicant, Mr. Agnaou, was a lawyer. He worked as a prosecutor at the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (“PPSC”). He was given responsibility for a file in which he determined criminal charges should be laid. In 2009, the Applicant received a decision from his superiors that proceedings would not be instituted. The Applicant wrote emails to his supervisor and later identified those emails as protected disclosures under s. 12 of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (“Act”). The Applicant and the PPSC signed a memorandum of understanding under which PPSC granted the Applicant leave, following which he was to have priority with the Public Service Commission for one year. In exchange, the Applicant promised to withdraw all his complaints and grievances and to leave the PPSC. A few days later, the Applicant learned he had qualified in a pool for positions at a higher level than the one he held. In 2012, the PPSC used that pool to propose the appointment of two other lawyers to positions at that level. After the Applicant asserted his priority entitlement, the PPSC decided to abandon the appointment process involving the pool and to reclassify the positions instead. On January 7, 2013, the Applicant filed a reprisal complaint with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. After hearing the complaint, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal found the Applicant had not proved on a balance of probabilities he had made a protected internal disclosure in April 2009 or the measure taken in his case had been taken because he had made a protected disclosure. The Tribunal therefore dismissed the complaint. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents Public Prosecution Service of Canada, Brian Saunders, George Dolhai and Denis Desharnais.”
Employment Law: Discrimination
Zheng v. G4S Secure Solutions (Canada), et al., 2022 ONCA (40529)
The Applicant was employed by the Respondent G4S Secure Solutions (Canada) Ltd. as a security guard. His employment was terminated. He made a claim to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that he was the subject of discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of his race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, and ethnic origin. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the claim and the Applicant’s motion for reconsideration was dismissed. The Applicant’s application for J.R. was dismissed and leave to appeal to the Ont. C.A. was also dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Child Protection; Parental Alienation
D.P. v. Director of Youth Protection of the CIUSSS, et al., 2022 QCCA 944 (40424)
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 child protection and parental alienation. “The motion to file a lengthy memorandum is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Family Law Orders Including Family Home
Richardson v. Richardson, et al., 2022 SKCA 133 (40542)
Mr. and Ms. Richardson had been involved in ongoing family proceedings. There have been numerous family law orders including transfer of title to the family home issued in the Court of King’s Bench of Saskatchewan. The Sask. C.A. addressed four matters in one decision. Two show cause applications concerned appeals initiated by Mr. Richardson. The Sask. C.A. dismissed the appeals. Two applications for prerogative relief concerned Mr. Richardson’s various grievances against the alleged actions of a number of individuals. The Sask. C.A. also dismissed those applications. “The applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed with costs to the respondents Assistant Commissioner Rhonda Blackmore of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (F-Division) and Jessica Karam.”
Family Law: Full Parenting Time
D.P. v. G.G., 2022 QCCA 1709 (40621)
There is a publication ban in this case, and a publication ban on the party in the context of divorce and related matters including children. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Labour Law: Duty of Fair Representation
R.R. v. Health Sciences Association of Alberta, 2022 ABCA 343 (40522)
The Applicant was employed as a laboratory technologist with Canadian Blood Services from January 2007 until her employment was terminated in September 2015. She had been disciplined by her employer through written warnings and suspensions prior to her termination. Health Sciences Association of Alberta (the “Union”) grieved the written warning, suspensions, and termination on behalf of the Applicant. The grievances were dismissed. The Applicant filed a complaint with the Alberta Labour Relations Board claiming the Union had breached its duty of fair representation under s. 153 of the Labour Relations Code. The Board dismissed her complaint. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the Applicant’s J.R. application. The Applicant did not appeal this decision. The Board dismissed the Applicant’s request to reconsider its decision dismissing her fair representation complaint. The application for J.R. of the Board’s reconsideration decision was dismissed as was the appeal to the Alta. C.A. “The miscellaneous motion is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Municipal Law: Contracts
Les consultants Gauthier Morel inc., et al. v. Ville de Laval, 2022 QCCA 1342 (40478)
At the time of the events, the Respondent, Ville de Laval (“City”), had been awarding various computer consulting contracts to the Applicant Les consultants Gauthier Morel inc. (“CGM”) for nearly 20 years. In 2011, the City terminated one of the contracts. CGM sued the City for damages for unlawful, abusive, cavalier and arbitrary resiliation of the contract. In defence, the City filed a cross-application in which it claimed soldarily from CGM and its president, the Applicant Daniel Gauthier, reimbursement of the fees it had allegedly overpaid under three of the contracts, which, according to it, had involved fraud or fraudulent tactics. CGM added a claim for damages for defamation to its application. CGM and Mr. Gauthier also sought to have the City’s cross-application declared abusive, and they claimed damages corresponding to their extrajudicial fees. The Québec Superior Court dismissed CGM’s claim for damages for resiliation of the contract but allowed CGM’s action in defamation and ordered the City to pay CGM $30K. It dismissed in their entirety the City’s cross-application and the application by Mr. Gauthier and CGM for a declaration the cross-application was abusive and for damages. The City appealed, as did CGM and Mr. Gauthier. The Qué. C.A. allowed the City’s appeal in part and ordered CGM and Mr. Gauthier solidarily to pay the City $142,520. It dismissed the incidental appeal of CGM and Mr. Gauthier. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Municipal Law: Expropriation
Groupe Novico Inc. v. Ville de Blainville, 2022 QCCA 1153 (40433)
This Leave concerned the Respondent’s expropriation of land owned by the Applicant to build a water retention pond as part of a real estate development project called “Quartier Chambéry”, the development of which was being coordinated and insured by the Respondent. The parties did not agree on the expropriation indemnity. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec (“ATQ”) assessed the expropriation indemnity at $8.77 per square foot for the front part of the lot and $4.43 per square foot for the rear part. The Applicant filed a motion for leave to appeal from the ATQ’s decision, raising five questions. The Court of Québec allowed the motion in part and granted leave to appeal on three of the five questions. The appeal was subsequently allowed in part. The Court of Québec ordered the case be remitted to the ATQ to determine the expropriation indemnity to be set for the rear part of the lot in accordance with its directions. The Respondent applied for J.R. of the Court of Québec’s judgment. The Québec Superior Court allowed the application for J.R. in part, set aside the Court of Québec’s judgment in part and restored the ATQ’s decision, but substituted $1,974, 477.16 for $1,910,278 as the amount of the expropriation indemnity. The Applicant appealed the Superior Court’s judgment, but the appeal was dismissed by the Qué. C.A. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Pharmacies: Provincial Regulation
Eastside Pharmacy Ltd. v. Minister of Health of British Columbia, 2022 BCCA 259 (40397)
There is a Sealing Order in this case, in the context of provincial regulation of pharmacies under the B.C. Pharmaceutical Services Act. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Professions: Discipline
J.J.B. v. Law Society of Ontario, 2022 ONCA (40540)
There is a publication ban in this case; a sealing order; certain information is not available to the public, in the context of professional misconduct. “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. O’Bonsawin J. took no part in the judgment.”
Professions: Discipline; Disclosure
Cameron v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan, 2022 SKCA 118 (40535)
The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan conducted proceedings into complaints alleging two engineers engaged in improper conduct. The complainant, Dr. Cameron, requested disclosure of documents relied upon and was denied disclosure. Dr. Cameron applied for J.R. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan dismissed the application. The Sask. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Professions: Illegal Practice of Law; Service
Michalakopoulos v. Bar of Montréal, 2022 QCCA 1266 (40510)
The Applicant, Mr. Michalakopoulos, was a former member of the Québec Bar who was charged with two counts of the illegal practice of law. He was convicted by default, after the statement of offences was served on him by email, pursuant to a motion granted for a special mode of service. However, Mr. Michalakopoulos claimed he was never served with the statement of offences by e-mail. The Court of Québec denied Mr. Michalakopoulos’ motion for revocation of the conviction decision. The Québec Superior Court dismissed Mr. Michalakopoulos’ appeal from the Court of Québec decision, and the Qué. C.A. then refused to grant Mr. Michalakopoulos leave to appeal the Superior Court decision. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Professions: Judges
Gagnon v. Conseil de la justice administrative, et al., 2022 QCCA 1011 (40376)
The Respondent Mathieu Proulx, in his capacity as president of the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (“ATQ”), filed a complaint against the Applicant, Administrative Judge Gagnon, for failure to adhere to the advisement period set out in the Act respecting administrative justice. The inquiry process at the Conseil de la justice administrative led to a recommendation Ms. Gagnon be dismissed, which the government did in June 2020. Ms. Gagnon applied for J.R. of the decision, making arguments based on the biased nature of the decision-making process of the Conseil’s inquiry committee, particularly in light of the role played by the committee’s lawyer. The Superior Court and the Qué. C.A. rejected those arguments. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent.”
Professions: Lawyer-Client Relationships
Simon v. Haccoun, 2022 QCCA 914 (40374)
The parties were long-time lawyers who have known each other since university. The Respondent, Mr. Haccoun, was a retired Crown counsel, while the Applicant, Mr. Simon, worked in real estate law. In 2012, Mr. Haccoun asked Mr. Simon whether someone from among his acquaintances would be able to offer him an opportunity to invest in a real estate project. Mr. Simon therefore put him in touch with one of his clients, Mr. Candappa, who was seeking financing for a construction project. However, Mr. Simon did not tell Mr. Haccoun about Mr. Candappa’s bankruptcy or about the criminal charges laid against him, nor did he tell Mr. Haccoun he had a personal interest in the project. Mr. Haccoun ultimately invested, but the project failed. He lost his entire investment and sued Mr. Simon and Mr. Candappa for damages. The trial judge found Mr. Simon was civilly liable to Mr. Haccoun because of the existence of a lawyer-client relationship and the professional obligations arising from it. The Qué. C.A. also held Mr. Simon was civilly liable, but based instead on the principles of extracontractual liability. It determined Mr. Simon had committed various faults that made him liable for Mr. Haccoun’s financial losses. “The application for leave…is dismissed with costs.”
Real Property: Specific Performance; APS
2088556 Ontario Inc. v. M & M Homes Inc., 2022 ONCA 364 (40299)
The Respondent, a land developer, agreed to purchase land for a commercial development from the Applicant. The Respondent brought an action for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale and sought an abatement of the original purchase price. The Respondent was awarded specific performance and an adjustment in the purchase price. Fixed costs in the amount of $210K were also awarded. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Real Property/Torts: Negligent Misrepresentation
9660143 Canada Inc., et al. v. The Nationwide Groups Ltd., 2022 ONCA 676 (40508)
9660143 Canada Inc. and Mr. Singh commenced an action for negligent misrepresentation against Nationwide Groups Ltd. Their pleadings allege that they entered into an agreement with a third party to develop property but the agreement did not proceed when a buyer of the subject property refused to close after her lender received a negligent appraisal of the property from the Nationwide Groups Ltd. The Nationwide Groups Ltd. filed a motion for summary judgment striking the action. The motion judge struck the action. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Tax: Charities
Fortius Foundation v. Minister of National Revenue, 2022 FCA 176 (40515)
The Applicant was a registered charity under the ITA. The Canada Revenue Agency found the Applicant had failed to comply with the requirements under the ITA and the Applicant was advised the Respondent would be publishing in the Canada Gazette a notice revoking the Applicant’s registration pursuant to s. 168(2)(b) of the ITA. The Applicant commenced a proceeding before the Fed. C.A. for an order precluding the Respondent from publishing the notice of revocation until it followed the objection process under s. 168(4) of the ITA and any appeal available under s. 172(3) of the ITA. It also brought a motion for interim relief funder Rules 372 and 373 of the Federal Courts Rules. The Respondent delayed the publication until the motion for interim relief was decided. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the motion for interim relief on the basis the Applicant had not satisfied the court it would suffer irreparable harm from the publication of the notice or the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim relief. “The motion to adduce fresh evidence is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Torts: Misfeasance in Public Office
Slater v. Pedigree Poultry Ltd., et al., 2022 SKCA 113 (40476)
The Respondent, the Saskatchewan Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Marketing Board (“Board”) is the regulator under the legislative scheme created to oversee the production and marketing components of the broiler hatching egg industry, principally through a licensing regime and quota limits. The individuals, Mervin Slater (the Applicant here) and Victor Loewen, were directors of the Board at the relevant time as well as active producers in the broiler hatching egg industry. The Respondents, Pedigree Poultry Ltd. and Mr. Dubois, were producers whose businesses fell under the oversight of the Board and they commenced an action for compensatory damages against the Board as well as Messrs. Slater and Loewen in their individual capacities as directors of the Board in relation to actions the Board took, or omitted to take, in the discharge of its regulatory function. The Respondents alleged that their actions and behaviour rose to the level of misfeasance in public office. The Court of Queen’s Bench found each of the Board and the individual directors liable for misfeasance in public office. The court awarded the Respondents Pedigree and Mr. Dubois substantial damages and imposed a punitive damage award against one director, Mr. Slater personally. The Sask. C.A. dismissed the appeals except to the limited extent of setting aside the trial judge’s finding as to Mr. Loewen’s personal liability for losses arising from the June placement issue. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Pedigree Poultry Ltd. and Ronald Dubois.”
Torts: Misfeasance in Public Office
Saskatchewan Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Marketing Board v. Pedigree Poultry Ltd., et al. 2022 SKCA 113 (40482)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Pedigree Poultry Ltd. and Ronald Dubois.”
Torts: Misfeasance in Public Office
Loewen v. Pedigree Poultry Ltd., et al. 2022 SKCA 113 (40485)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents, Pedigree Poultry Ltd. and Ronald Dubois.”