Granted

Criminal Law: Prior Convictions

A.H. v. R.,2023 ONCA 253 (41015)
Mr. Hussein was charged with the second degree murder of Mr. Boucher, fatally stabbed at a party. Mr. Hussein testified at his trial. Defence counsel brought a Corbett application to prevent or restrict the Crown from cross-examining him on his criminal record. The trial judge dismissed the application and Crown counsel cross-examined Mr. Hussein on his criminal record. The trial judge instructed the jury on the use it could make of Mr. Hussein’s criminal record; the jury convicted Mr. Hussein of second 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 application for leave to appeal…is granted.”

Dismissed

Civil Litigation/Banks: Summary Judgments

Graham Hogarth, et al. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2023 ONCA 30 (40914)
The Respondent, Royal Bank of Canada sought summary judgment motion against the Applicants for debts owing. The Ont. Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion to add parties is dismissed without costs. The motion to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed without costs. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Civil Litigation: Delay

Ulysse v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2023 QCCA 882 (40891)
Issues re delay to produce a brief within the deadline. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Civil Litigation: Stays

Sirois, et al. v. Richer, 2023 QCCA 836 (40863)
Conditional stay of execution issues. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Class Actions: Pardons

Groupe Alter Justice v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 QCCA 622 (40829)
Publication ban in the context of class action re pardons. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Contracts/Real Estate: Termination; Breach

Joss Covenoho v. Homelife/Response Realty Inc., et al., 2023 ONCA (40883)
The Applicant, a real estate salesperson working as an independent contractor for the Respondent Right at Home Realty Inc. (“Right at Home”) tendered a conditional offer to purchase a property listed by the Respondent Homelife/Response Realty Inc. (“Homelife”) on behalf of her client. The vendor did not accept the offer and it expired. The Applicant demanded payment of a commission and commenced a claim in Right at Home’s name to collect one. Right at Home demanded that the Applicant withdraw the claim. When she declined, Right at Home terminated its relationship with her. The Applicant sued Right at Home for declining to pursue a commission and for terminating their relationship, and sued Homelife for payment of a commission. The Ont. Small Claims Court granted a motion to strike the Applicant’s claims. Neither she nor Right at Home were parties to the listing agreement and therefore could not sue under that agreement to collect a commission. Right at Home was entitled to terminate its relationship with the Applicant without cause, and in any event her conduct gave Right at Home cause to do so. The Divisional Court, on appeal, held that the motion judge’s decision was correct. There was no evidence that the motion judge was biased, nor was there any basis to interfere with the costs award on the motion. The appeal was dismissed. The Ont. C.A. denied leave to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Right at Home Realty Inc.”
 

Criminal Law: Harassment; Sentencing

G.S.S. v. R., 2021 ABCA 56 (39720)
Mr. Sidhu was convicted of criminal harassment pursuant to s. 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 9 months incarceration and 3 years probation. The Alta. C.A. allowed the sentence appeal; held that in spite of what it determines as a fit sentence, the Alta. C.A. declined to impose a harsher sentence than the sentencing judge did for two reasons: the Crown did not file a notice of appeal, and the Crown supported the sentence that the sentencing judge imposed; imposed the same sentence as the sentencing judge did, which was 9 months’ of incarceration, and 3 years’ of probation. “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: Incest

R. v. R.B.W., 2023 NSCA 58 (40960)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of sentencing for incest. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Sexual Offences

C.J.D. v. R., 2023 MBCA 85 (41025)
Publication ban; issues re prior sexual history and alleged negative comments by Crown counsel. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Family Law: Child Protection

K.Z. v. P.S., 2023 QBCA (40977)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of state intervention re child protection in acrimonious family law litigation between married ex-spouses. “The application for leave to appeal…dismissed.”
 

Municipal Law: By-laws

Upper Canada Land Titles and Patent Research Initiative v. Regional Municipality of Niagara (a.k.a Niagara Region), 2023 ONCA 416 (40865)
The Applicant Upper Canada Land Titles and Patent Research Initiative, a not-for-profit organization, sought to quash the Respondent Regional Municipality of Niagara’s Woodland Conservation By-law for illegality or to have it declared without legal effect as it concerns a property owned by its president, which was originally granted by a Crown patent in 1818. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. It was satisfied that the by-law making authority was clear and that it was properly exercised. It added that the by-law did not conflict with the Crown patent. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Torts/Civil Litigation: Misfeasance in Public Office; Spoilation

Trillium Power Wind Corporation v. His R., of the Province of Ontario, as Represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of Energy, 2023 ONCA 412 (40896)
The Applicant, Trillium Power Wind Corporation (“Trillium”) proceeded a substantial way toward obtaining authorization to operate a wind farm in a lakebed in Ontario when, on February 11, 2011, without prior notice, the Respondent Ontario announced a halt to its consideration of any offshore wind farm projects and thereby effectively terminated Trillium’s approval application. Ontario’s announcement was made the same day that Trillium’s project financing was set to close. Trillium’s financing consequently did not proceed. Trillium commenced an action against Ontario. Trillium was permitted to proceed with its allegation of misfeasance in public office based on Ontario allegedly timing its announcement to forestall the closing of Trillium’s project financing. Trillium later learned that Ontario had destroyed thousands of documents and other evidence allegedly related to the cancellation. It amended its pleadings to include a claim of spoliation. The parties brought competing summary judgment motions. The motion judge dismissed Trillium’s causes of action, with costs to Ontario. The Ont. C.A. saw no error in the dismissal of Trillium’s claim for misfeasance in public office but found an error in the dismissal of the spoliation claim; it set aside the dismissal of the spoliation claim; found that the circumstances of Ontario’s spoliation amounted to an abuse of process and that the appropriate remedy was to deprive Ontario of its costs in the Superior Court of Justice and to grant Trillium its costs of the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”