Granted

Class Actions: Statutory Causes of Action; Material Change in Business

Lundin Mining Corporation, et al. v. Dov Markowich, 2023 ONCA 359 (40853)
The Respondent, Dov Markowich, sought leave under s. 138.8, of Ontario’s Securities Act, to bring a statutory cause of action against the Applicant, Lundin Mining Corporation (“Lundin”) and its officers and directors for Lundin’s alleged failure to disclose forthwith a material change in its business, operations or capital, as required under the Securities Act. He also sought certification of the cause of action as a class action. The material changes Mr. Markowich alleged Lundin had an obligation to disclose in a timely manner were pit wall instability detected in part of Lundin’s Candelaria mine in Chile, and a subsequent rockslide at the mine. The motion judge dismissed Mr. Markowich’s motions. He concluded that there was no reasonable possibility that there had been a change to Lundin’s business, operations or capital. He did, however, conclude that if the matters had constituted a change, the change was material. The Ont. C.A. allowed Mr. Markowich’s appeal. It concluded the motion judge interpreted the words “change in the business, operations or capital” too narrowly. Adopting and applying a more generous interpretation to the words, the Ont. C.A. granted leave to proceed with the statutory cause of action. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
 

Constitutional Law: Division Powers

Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Attorney General of Québec, et al., 2023 QCCA 506 (40786)
The Applicant, Opsis Airport Services Inc., is a federal company that operates the emergency call dispatch centre at Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport. The Respondent the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions charged Opsis with operating an enterprise that carried on private security activities without holding an agency licence of the appropriate class, contrary to ss. 4 and 114 of the Private Security Act. Opsis admitted that, without holding an agency licence, it was carrying on activities related to electronic security systems, which are normally subject to the PSA. However, it challenged the PSA’s constitutional applicability, relying on the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. The Court of Québec held that the PSA applied to Opsis and therefore accepted the guilty pleas, convicted Opsis of the offences as charged and imposed fines on it. The court found that the PSA did not intrude on the core of a federal head of power because the PSA had no impact or only a very small impact on Opsis’s operations. The Québec Superior Court allowed Opsis’s appeal, declared the PSA inapplicable to Opsis’s activities related to the operation of the emergency call centre pursuant to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, quashed the convictions and acquitted Opsis of the offences charged. The judge held that the PSA intruded on the core of the federal aeronautics power, which included airport security, and that the intrusion constituted an impairment of the core of the federal power. A majority of the Qué. C.A. allowed the appeal, set aside the Superior Court’s judgment and affirmed the convictions entered by the Court of Québec. Although Opsis’s activities fell within the core of Parliament’s aeronautics power, the application of the PSA did not cause any actual impairment. A purely speculative or hypothetical impairment did not suffice. Ruel J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. He was of the view that if the PSA was applicable to Opsis’s operations, the provisions would impair the core of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics safety and security. “The motion for intervention filed by Aéroports de Montréal and Aéroport de Québec inc. is dismissed, without prejudice to their right to bring a motion for leave to intervene in the appeal. The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
 

Constitutional Law: Division of Powers

Quebec Maritime Services Inc., et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al., 2023 QCCA 325 (40791)
There is a sealing order in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of the Québec Private Security Act re interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy. “The motion of the respondent the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions for an extension of time to serve and file the response to the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for intervention filed by Aéroports de Montréal and Aéroport de Québec inc. is dismissed, without prejudice to their right to bring a motion for leave to intervene in the appeal. The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”

Dismissed

Criminal Law: Animal Cruelty

Zhang v. R., 2023 SKCA (41068)
The Applicant was charged summarily with killing a cat and with seriously injuring another cat, both pursuant to s. 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge convicted the Applicant on both counts, and sentenced him to a five-month conditional sentence of imprisonment. The Court of Queen’s Bench dismissed the Applicant’s appeal from conviction and sentence. The Sask. C.A. dismissed an application for fresh evidence and an oral application to amend the notice of appeal to permit an appeal from sentence, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal from the conviction. “Pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the time to serve the reply is extended to February 20, 2024. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Criminal Law: Search and Seizure

Hafizi v. R., 2023 ONCA 639 (41022)
Pursuant to a wiretap authorisation in which Mr. Hafizi was a named person but not the primary target, the police intercepted Mr. Hafizi uttering a death threat and uttering statements indicating that he was trafficking in drugs. Mr. Hafizi was arrested, his vehicle was searched incident to arrest, and Mr. Hafizi was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and uttering a death threat. Mr. Hafizi applied to exclude the evidence. The trial judge dismissed the application and convicted Mr. Hafizi. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
 

Family Law: Child Protection

M.D. and C.D. v. Director of Child and Family Services, 2023 ABCA 83 (41011)
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 motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument in support of the motion is granted. All other miscellaneous motions are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed. Moreau J. took no part in the judgment.”
 

Family Law: Child and Related Issues

Tkach v. Pellegrini, 2023 SKCA 85 (40940)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of a range of family law issues. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
 

Family Law: Time Extensions to Appeal

C.V.F. v. W.A.C., 2023 ONCA 595 (41013)
There is a publication ban in this case, certain information not available to the public, in the context of time extensions to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”