Civil Litigation: Jurisdiction

GlycoBioSciences Inc. v. Herrero and Associates, 2023 ONCA 331 (40813)
The Applicant, an Ontario corporation, approached the Respondent, a law firm located in Madrid, to undertake certain work on its behalf with respect to patent applications in Panama, Costa Rica, and Ecuador. The Ecuadorian patent application is not in issue in this proceeding. The Applicant brought an action in Ontario alleging that the Respondent misrepresented to it the status of its patent applications in Panama and Costa Rica in a negligent and fraudulent manner, resulting in the loss of the Panamanian and Costa Rican patent applications. The Respondent brought a motion to dismiss the action on the basis that the subject matter is outside of the court’s jurisdiction. The motion was granted and the action was dismissed. The appeal to the Ont. C.A. was also dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation

Martin Green v. University of Winnipeg, 2023 MBCA 67 (40942)
Steele J.A. of the Man. C.A. declared Mr. Green a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from continuing further appeal proceedings related to his removal from the University of Winnipeg’s teacher certification program, without first obtaining leave of the Man. C.A. Mr. Green applied for rescission of the vexatious litigant order pursuant to The Court of Appeal Act. Cameron J.A. dismissed the application. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs in accordance with the tariff of fees and disbursements set out in Schedule B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

Class Actions: Train Whistles

Norman Klassen v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2023 ABCA 233 (40836)
The Applicant Mr. Klassen brought an application for certification of a class action, on behalf of a class of persons, based in nuisance, alleging that the Respondent, Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) continued the use of train whistles at specific crossings in Parkland County notwithstanding steps taken by the County to require CN to cease the ongoing operation of whistles at the crossings. The case management judge heard and granted an application to certify the action as a class proceeding. The Alta. C.A. allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order. “The motion for permission to file a sur-reply is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Criminal Law: 10(b)

Nicholas Villeneuve v. R, 2023 NLCA 14 (40841)
The Applicant was driving his truck home when he collided head-on with a vehicle containing four individuals. Two died and two others sustained serious injuries. The Applicant was injured and was taken to the hospital. The Applicant was charged with eight impaired and dangerous driving related charges. The trial judge held that the Applicant’s s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached, excluded the evidence, and acquitted the Applicant. The N.L.C.A. held that the trial judge made numerous errors which had a material bearing on the acquittals. The N.L.C.A. allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and ordered a new trial. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Debtor–Creditor: Debt Recovery

Tibor Uhrik v. Antonietta Terrigno, 2023 ABCA 4 (40648)
The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta ordered Mr. Uhrik to fulfill undertakings in aid of enforcement of a judgment debt. Mr. Uhrik appealed. The Alta. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the complete application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Debtor–Creditor: Guarantees

Jim Neilas, et al. v. Maureen Ferraro, et al., 2023 ONCA 456 (40811)
The Respondents invested in a syndicated mortgage to finance a planned residential condominium project. The project property was owned by 1249 Queen E. Inc. (“1249”). When 1249 sought funding for the project, Hi-Rise Capital Ltd. (“HRC”) was used as the vehicle by which to create a syndicate of investors for a mortgage on the project’s property. When investing, the Respondents signed trust agreements with HRC. Attached to the trust agreements were loan participation agreements (“LPA”) made between each investor and HRC. The LPA referred to a loan commitment issued by HRC to 1249. That loan commitment contained guarantees from 1249 and Jim Neilas. Mr. Neilas was an officer and director of both 1249 and HRC. The project never proceeded and the property was sold at a loss, with the Respondents receiving part of the sale proceeds. The Respondents commenced an action against the Applicants to recover the losses on their investments. The motion judge granted summary judgment against Mr. Neilas and 1249 on guarantees they gave as part of the mortgage financing. He interpreted the LPA as incorporating by reference the terms the loan commitment including guarantees of the loan by 1249 and Mr. Neilas personally. On appeal to the Ont. C.A., the majority concluded the motion judge did not err in determining that the investors were entitled to the benefit of the guarantees given by Mr. Neilas and 1249 in the loan commitment. A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Mortgages: Sale Proceeds

Satinder Paul Singh Dhillon, et al. v. Michael Vincent Morancie Robertson, et al.,2023 BCCA 140 (40819)
In 2009, a residential property was transferred from Applicant Surjit Kaur Dhillon (hereafter, “Surjit”) to Respondent Shantel Lamons. Following the transfer, Surjit and her son, Applicant Satinder Paul Singh Dhillon (together, “the Applicants”), continued to reside at the property. The property was later subject to foreclosure. In 2019, Surjit bought the property from the bank. After recovering the principal, interest, and costs on foreclosure, the bank paid the excess sale proceeds into court. Entitlement to those excess sale proceeds was disputed. The Applicants brought an action against the Respondents. The Respondents brought a counterclaim for unpaid rent between 2009 to 2019. At trial, the Respondents were successful in their counterclaim and the Applicants’ claim dismissed. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the Applicants’ appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”