Civil Litigation: Payment Out of Court
Si Zhou (aka Si (Silas) Zhou, aka Silas Zhou), et al. v. NDrive, Navigation Systems S.A., et al., 2023 ONCA 239 (40784)
In the context of ongoing litigation between the parties, summary judgment was granted in the Respondents’ favour; the Applicants were ordered to pay $881,170.84 USD to the Respondents, together with pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as punitive damages in the amount of $200,000, and costs on a full indemnity basis. The summary judgment decision was upheld on appeal. After the Applicants failed to pay the funds as ordered, the Respondents brought a motion for payment out of court of the funds paid into court for purposes of the litigation. A motion judge granted the motion for payment and ordered the release of the funds. The Applicants attempted to appeal this order directly to the Ont. C.A.. The Ont. C.A. quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction; given that the payment order was interlocutory in nature, the only avenue of appeal open to the Applicants was to the Divisional Court. The Applicants now seek leave to appeal from the Ont. C.A.’s decision quashing their appeal for want of jurisdiction. “The various requests for miscellaneous relief are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Condominiums: Liens
Leslie Arthur Swan v. Durham Condominium Corporation No. 45, 2023 ONCA (40660)
The Applicant was the owner of a unit in a condominium building. The Respondent, Durham Condominium Corporation No. 45, a condominium corporation. The motions judge revised the amount of the lien that the Respondent had registered against the Applicant’s unit to $204,791.56. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Corporate Law/Contracts: Oral Agreements
2848-8542 Québec Inc. v. 2848-9144 Québec Inc., 2023 QCCA 308 (40720)
The Applicant and Respondent holding companies each owned fifty percent of the shares in the intervener business. The Respondent applied to the Québec Superior Court to homologate a transaction it allegedly concluded orally with the Applicant regarding the sale of its shares. The Applicant denied the existence of the transaction, and objected to testimonial evidence being tendered about it. The application judge dismissed the objection to the evidence and found that there had been an offer made and accepted by the parties supporting the existence of the transaction. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the application judge that the Applicant effectively waived its right to object to further testimony on the oral agreement. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent.”
Criminal Law: Counsel of choice
K.A.K v. R., et al., 2023 NLSC (40831)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of requesting the A.G. to pay for counsel of choice. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”
Criminal Law: Fraud
R. v. Tracy Kitch, 2023 NSCA 33 (40808)
The Respondent was the CEO of a hospital. The offences involved personal expenses incurred on her corporate credit card. The Respondent was convicted of fraud and fraud by a public officer. The N.S.C.A. allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial. “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: Hearsay
D.A.A. v. R., 2023 ABCA 77 (40812)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of photo lineup identification being admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response to the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Summary Convictions
Côté v. R., 2023 QCCA 538 (40822)
The Applicant was convicted of offences punishable by way of summary conviction in connection with two incidents that occurred in July and August 2020. The Québec Superior Court dismissed the Applicant’s summary appeal and the Qué. C.A. dismissed the application for leave to appeal. “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. Côté J. took no part in the judgment.”
International Law: Repatriation
Boloh 1(a), et al. v. R., et al., 2023 FCA 120 (40851)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of repatriation of four Canadians imprisoned in Syria. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Language Rights: Human Rights Complaints
Raymond Carby-Samuels v. Ville de Gatineau, et al., 2023 QCSC (40885)
Mr. Carby-Samuels filed complaints against Ville de Gatineau and several individual police officers at the Québec Human Rights Tribunal. The Respondents addressed the Tribunal and Mr. Carby-Samuels in French. The Tribunal made preliminary rulings, which included that Mr. Carby-Samuels was not entitled to English translation or interpretation, but that he could hire such services on his own. Mr. Carby-Samuels filed an application to appeal to the Québec Superior Court, and the Respondents filed a motion asking the court to decline jurisdiction. Mr. Carby-Samuels objected to the Respondents arguing that motion in French. The Superior Court issued a judgment on Mr. Carby-Samuels objection and held that Mr. Carby-Samuels was entitled to plead his case in English but was not entitled to state-funded interpretation or translation. “The applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Since the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed for want of jurisdiction, it is not necessary to consider the motion for a stay and the miscellaneous motions.”
Municipal Law: Constitutionality
Jordan Ash v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2023 ONCA (40817)
Applicant Jordan Ash brought an application challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Act, 2001. The application judge dismissed the application. The Ont. C.A. dismissed Mr. Ash’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”