Agriculture: Raw Milk

J.S. v. R. (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs), 2023 ONCA (40958)
The Applicant was the subject of a complaint and an investigation was initiated by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, Rural Affairs; Regulatory Compliance Unit, which involved surveillance and the execution of a search warrant at the Applicant’s farm. Between November 6, 2019 and February 6, 2020, the Applicant participated in the regular milking of 16 lactating jersey dairy cows. The Applicant was observed on at least six occasions during the offence period using a van to deliver raw milk to at least seven locations in the greater Toronto area. As a pre-requisite to buying raw milk from the Applicant was the completion of a quiz and waiver. The Justice of the Peace concluded that the Applicant did not have a licence as defined by the Milk Act of Ontario, s. 15(1). The Applicant was found guilty of operating the milk plant without a licence and was sentenced to a $2000 fine and two years’ of probation. The Applicant’s appeal was dismissed. The Applicant’s motion for leave to appeal was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Appeals: Delay

Asaduzzaman, et al. v. Leonard, Cardinal Leonard Denis Avocat S.N., et al., 2023 QCCA 646 (40859)
A verbal application to be authorized to appeal outside the applicable time limit re art. 363 C.C.P. was dismissed by the Qué. C.A., on the basis the appellants could have acted sooner, the appeal no chance of success, reasonable or otherwise. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Charter: Freedom of Religion

Gateway Bible Baptist Church, et al. v. R. in Right of the Province of Manitoba, et al., 2023 MBCA 56 (40903)
The application judge below held: ss. 13 and 67 of the Manitoba Public Health Act constitutional; Charter infringements were justified by s. 1; certain Public Heath Orders complied with s. 3 of the Act. The Man. C.A. concluded “that an adversarial context continues to exist”, but dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation

Hicks v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 FCA (40915)
Mr. Hicks, who was self-represented and incarcerated, brought an action against the Attorney General recounting a lengthy factual matrix. This action was one of numerous legal proceedings brought by Mr. Hicks against numerous parties in various courts. Many of these proceedings relate to his former employment and other events which he believes demonstrate a pattern of unlawful conduct by the many implicated parties, including the Attorney General. The Attorney General requested a declaration that Mr. Hicks is a vexatious litigant. The Federal Court declared Mr. Hicks to be a vexatious litigant. Mr. Hicks asked the Fed. C.A. for an extension of time to file his application for leave to appeal to the Fed. C.A. The application was denied. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Creditor/Debtor: Garnishment; Priorities

Lynda Friendly and Lynda Friendly & Associates by their assignee, Assignment Credit Corp. v. 1671379 Ontario Inc., et al., 2023 ONCA 423 (40901)
1671379 Ontario Inc. was owed payments of at least $167,976.15. The payments were subject to garnishment. Each of two creditors of 1671379 Ontario Inc., MCAP Financial Corporation and Assignment Credit Corp., served a Notice of Garnishment and a garnishment hearing was held. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a decision on creditors’ priorities. The Ont. C.A. granted an appeal in part and remanded the matter back to the Ontario Superior Court for a re-hearing on part of the decision on creditors’ priorities. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Fraud

S.G. v. R., 2023 QCCA 1201 (41009)
The Applicant was convicted by a jury of fraud. The Qué. C.A. dealt with the following issues: hearsay; property; bias; jury instructions. The appeal was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Homicide; Aggravated Assault

L.C.W. v. R., 2022 BCCA 332 (40472)
Mr. Weng shot Messrs. Wu and Zhang over a dispute over a debt. Mr. Wu survived, but Mr. Zhang died. Mr. Weng was convicted of attempted murder and murder. The B.C.C.A. quashed the conviction for the attempted murder of Mr. Wu, replaced it with a conviction for aggravated assault. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the appeal from the murder conviction of Mr. Zhang. “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: NCR

M.D.D.G v. R., et al., 2023 ABCA 182 (40897)
In 2014, Mr. de Grood fatally stabbed five people at a house party while in a severe psychotic state. Macklin J. accepted an NCR plea, not guilty on account of mental disorder and committed Mr. de Grood into forensic psychiatric care. At his 2022 mandatory disposition review, he requested an absolute or conditional discharge. The Alberta Review Board ordered continued committal. The Alta. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault; Jury Questions

D.A.V. v. R., 2023 ABCA 197 (40974)
Publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of jury questions to trial judge. “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.”
 

Defamation: Contempt

Delane Industry Co. Ltd., et al. v. Tsawwassen Quay Market Corporation, et al., 2023 BCCA 298 (40936)
A consent order confirmed the parties’ terms of settlement of a defamation action and prohibited further defamation. In related proceedings, the Registrar of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordered disclosure. The Ont. Superior Court of Justice held Mr. Au Yeung and Delane Industry Co. Ltd. breached the defamation order and were in contempt of court. They were each fined $5,000. The Ont. Superior Court of Justice dismissed an application to find Tsawwassen Quay Market Corporation, Mr. Mathiesen and Mr. Sam in contempt of court for failing to fulfill the disclosure ordered by the Registrar. The B.C.C.A. dismissed appeals. “The motion for leave to have Mr. Au Yeung represent Delane Industry Co. Ltd is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Extradition: Fraud

K.K.A. a.k.a. K.A. a.k.a. K.A. v. Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America, 2023 ONCA 728 (40995)
The A.G. Can., on behalf of the U.S., sought the extradition of the Applicant on fraud-related charges. The Minister of Justice ordered his surrender. The extradition judge ordered the Applicant committed for extradition. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal, the application for judicial review and the motion to file fresh evidence. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Family Law: Abandoned Appeal

Tran v. Tran, 2023 ONCA (40832)
After an uncontested trial in the Ont. Superior Court of Justice, the Respondent successfully sought divorce, spousal support, imputation of income to the Applicant, the continuation of a restraining order, and equalization of the net family properties. The Applicant appealed to the Ont. C.A. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal as abandoned. “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.”
 

Family Law: Asset Valuation

Numair v. Numair, 2023 ONCA 530 (40945)
The parties, who have two children, were married in June of 2008 and separated in April of 2019. They jointly purchased a home together after they married and also acquired 50 per cent interests in two restaurant franchises. The wife stopped working in the paid work force in 2014 because of their younger son’s special needs and later returned in 2020. Their home was sold in March 2021 with net proceeds held in trust pending resolution of disputed issues. The issues at trial included quantum and entitlement to spousal support, the income of the parties to determine quantum of child support payable by the husband and arrears, identification and valuation of the assets acquired during marriage and the amount of any equalization payment arising from the assessment of net family properties. The parties jointly retained a Chartered Business Valuator to determine the value of the franchise interests and the amount of the husband’s income. The wife disagreed, however, with the CBV’s valuation of the husband’s franchise interest and with the determination of his income. The trial judge dismissed the wife’s claims for an unequal division of net family property and for spousal support. She also dismissed the husband’s claim for occupation rent. She accepted the CBV’s evidence regarding the value of the franchise shares and the husband’s income, and she determined the amount of the equalization payment owing by the husband to the wife. The trial judge also determined the amount of income of both parties for fixing the amount of retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the wife’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Family Law: Child Protection

K.M v. Minister of Community Services (Nova Scotia), 2023 NSSC 8 (41021)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of child protection. “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.”
 

Family Law: Property Value Increase Post-Separation

King v. Madi, 2023 ONCA 443 (40906)
The Applicant mother and Respondent father were married in June 2014. Their daughter was born in the fall of 2015, while the mother was still working on her Ph.D. The parties purchased the matrimonial home in 2015 and title was taken in the name of the father alone. The mother did not wish to be on the mortgage, and banking rules precluded her from being on title if she was not also on the mortgage. The parties’ relationship deteriorated after their daughter was born and they separated in November 2019. The matrimonial home sold in September 2020. There was a significant increase in the value of the matrimonial home between November 2019 and September 2020. The parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding the outstanding issues between them. At trial, the issues to be decided were parenting, child support, equalization of net family property and entitlement to the post-separation increase in value of the matrimonial home. The trial judge ordered that the child would reside primarily with the father with specified parenting time for the mother. He also ordered the mother to pay child support and a proportionate share of s. 7 expenses. With respect the matrimonial home, the trial judge decided that that the mother was entitled to share equally in the post-separation increase in value. The Ont. C.A. rejected the father’s grounds of appeal regarding the calculation of child support and the apportionment of s. 7 expenses; however, in the circumstances, the mother was not entitled to share in the post-separation increase in value of the matrimonial home. “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.”
 

Family Law: Support; Interjurisdictional Issues

Taimish v. Al-Kadhimi, 2023 ONCA 661 (41028)
The parties married in 2003 and separated in 2009. The child of the marriage was born in 2007. At the time of separation, the family had been residing in Michigan, but the Applicant mother and child immediately relocated to the London, Ontario area. The mother subsequently commenced a divorce action in Michigan that resulted in a Consent Judgment of Divorce on April 26, 2010. It provided, inter alia, for joint legal custody with the mother to have primary care, regular and holiday parenting time for the Respondent father, and provided for child support of $1,700 US per month payable by the father. The father relocated to Georgia and then to Nebraska. In 2016, a dispute arose between the parties over the father’s parenting time and the mother suspended the father’s access. The mother brought an application for sole custody, supervised access for the father, child support and retroactive and ongoing s. 7 expenses. The father brought a motion to dismiss the mother’s application on the basis that the child support issue had to be addressed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act (“ISOA”) and not the Family Law Act. The application judge ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the mother’s application under the Family Law Act. The route to vary the child support order was under the ISOA. This decision was upheld on appeal. The mother’s claims for retroactive and ongoing child support and s. 7 expenses were dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Leases: Residential; Termination

Dean, et al. v. McDonald, 2023 ONCA (41010)
The Respondent landlord applied for an order to terminate a residential tenancy and evict the Applicant tenants, because the landlord required possession of the rental unit for residential occupation purposes. The Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) granted the landlord’s application, and ordered the termination of the tenancy; the tenants were ordered to move out by the end of May 2022. The tenants’ attempt to have this order reviewed was denied. On November 3, 2022, a Divisional Court panel dismissed the tenants’ appeal from the LTB’s decision and from the review order, as well as their motion to adduce fresh evidence. The panel did however grant the tenants an extension of time, until December 5, to vacate the premises. On December 5, 2022, a single judge of the Ont. C.A. granted a stay of the Divisional Court order, pending a determination of the tenants’ motion for leave to appeal that order. On September 5, 2023, a panel of the Ont. C.A. dismissed the tenants’ motion for leave to appeal, as well as their motion for leave to introduce fresh evidence. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Pensions: Service Redemption

M.F.T. v. Retraite Québec, 2023 QCCA 694 (40888)
There is a publication ban and sealing order in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of redemption of service as a government employee. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Professions: Discipline

Petit v. Gagnon, en sa qualité de syndic du Barreau du Québec, et al., 2023 QCCA 680 (40852)
The Applicant, Mr. Petit, was a lawyer convicted of disciplinary offences in connection with the use of his trust account and his failure to cooperate with the inquiry of the Barreau du Québec’s syndic. As a defence, he argued that certain aspects of the professional discipline regime violated the guarantees of institutional independence and impartiality set out in s. 23 of the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The courts and tribunal below found that s. 23 provides minimum guarantees of structural independence and impartiality for disciplinary councils established pursuant to the provisions of the Professional Code, guarantees that are at an intermediate level in the circumstances. In such matters, the courts and tribunal ruled it is not perfection that is sought, but rather the achievement of an adequate degree of structural independence and impartiality in order to protect both the rights of professionals facing disciplinary proceedings and members of the public who expect functional and effective disciplinary justice. The question is whether a reasonable, informed person would view the provisions governing the structure of disciplinary councils as a threat to independence or impartiality. In this case, this question was answered in the negative in all of the earlier proceedings. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent Daniel Gagnon, in his capacity as syndic of the Barreau du Québec.”
 

Wills & Estates: Administration

Goldstick v. Monsma,2023 ABCA 257 (41012)
In the context of alleged issues re accountability/use of estate funds/fiduciary duties as to a personal representative in the estates administration process, the applicant herein applied for permission to appeal a decision of a single judge of the Alta. C.A. to a panel, which application was denied. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”