Criminal Law: Sexual Offences; Dangerous Offender Designation
X v. R., 2014 QCCA 303 (40357)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual offences committed as a youth, and after becoming an adult. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. In any event, had the motion for an extension of time been granted, the application for leave to appeal…would have been dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Time Extensions
Laurin v. R., 2020 QCCA 403 (40531)
Seven criminal convictions were entered against the Applicant, Emmanuel Laurin, by the Court of Québec and the Municipal Court of Sherbrooke. Wishing to appeal the judgments, Mr. Laurin filed a motion for leave to appeal in the Qué. C.A. as well as a motion for an extension of time to appeal. The Qué. C.A. unanimously dismissed both motions. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. In any event, had the motion for an extension of time been granted, the application for leave to appeal…would have been dismissed.”
Police: Discipline
Firsov v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FCA 191 (40547)
The Applicant was the subject of a Code of Conduct investigation into four allegations he contravened s. 4.2 of the RCMP Code of Conduct which requires “[m]embers are diligent in the performance of their duties and the carrying out of their responsibilities, including taking appropriate action to aid any person who is exposed to potential, imminent or actual danger.” A Code of Conduct investigation occurred and two of the four alleged conduct violations were found to be established. The Conduct Adjudicator upheld the conduct review decision and dismissed the appeal. The application for J.R. at the Federal Court was dismissed. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the subsequent appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Canada (Attorney General).”
Real Property/Civil Litigation: Failure to Close; Appeal Time Extensions
Sun v. Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited, 2022 ONCA 422 (40293)
The Respondent Teefy Developments (Bathurst Glen) Limited (“Teefy”), was building a subdivision in the City of Vaughan and retained a brokerage for the sale of the new homes. The Applicant, Ms. Sun, purchased a property through the brokerage, but was not in a position to close on the transaction for want of funds. After a number of extensions, Teefy terminated the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, without prejudice to its right to claim damages. In 2021, the Superior Court granted Teefy its damages as claimed on summary judgment. In so doing, it did not accept Ms. Sun’s arguments of vulnerability, mental pressure, undue pressure and compulsion in entering into the agreement. A single judge of the Ont. C.A. dismissed Ms. Sun’s motion to extend time to appeal the judgment, and a panel of the Ont. C.A. declined to review the extension decision and dismissed Ms. Sun’s motion to admit fresh evidence, noting as an exercise of discretion, the extension decision is entitled to deference on review, absent a demonstrated error in principle or misapprehension of material evidence. “The motion to serve and file new evidence is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”