Aboriginal Law: Declarations re Provincial Legislation
Native Alliance of Quebec, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, on behalf of the ministre des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune du Québec and the ministre délégué aux affaires autochtones du Québec, et al., 2024 QCCA 1472 (41631)
There is a sealing or confidentiality order in this case, in the context of an Aboriginal organization representing persons living off reserve in Québec, including non-status Indians, instituting court action and seeking declarations concerning various legislative provisions. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Aboriginal Law: Legal Interest; Mandate
Rock, et al. v. Pessamit Band Counsel, 2024 QCCA 1532 (41654)
The Applicants, René Rock, Réginald Rock, John Rock and Richard Hervieux, were members of the Pessamit Innu First Nation. They alleged the Respondent, the Conseil de bande de Pessamit, had wrongfully appropriated the First Nation’s powers with respect to Aboriginal rights and governmental self-determination. They sought a permanent injunction to prohibit the Respondent from taking action or making decisions concerning those rights and that autonomy. The Respondent brought an application for dismissal, disqualification and declinatory exception. With regard to the exception to dismiss, the Respondent argued that the Applicants did not have the legal interest required to act on behalf of the First Nation. The Québec Superior Court dismissed that application. The Qué. C.A. allowed the Respondent’s appeal in part and, with regard to the exception to dismiss, found the Applicants had not shown either they had received a mandate from the First Nation or that they had clearly defined the First Nation in their action. The court also found the Applicants had not proved they had a genuine interest in the issue raised or that their action was a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts. “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.”
Administrative Law: Canada Recovery Benefits Reconsiderations
Tremblay v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA (41789)
The Applicant, Éric Tremblay, applied to receive the Canada recovery benefit (“CRB”). After several weeks of collecting it, his applications were verified. After two reviews, it was found the Applicant was not eligible for the CRB because he had not earned at least $5K in employment income or net self employment income as required by the Canada Recovery Benefits Act. On J.R., the Federal Court found the Act permits the reconsideration of applications. Since the impugned decision was not unreasonable, there was no reason to intervene; the J.R. was dismissed. The Fed. C.A. upheld that decision. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Administrative Law: Standing
Democracy Watch v. Ontario (Integrity Commissioner), 2025 ONCA 153 (41788)
The Applicant, Democracy Watch (“DW”), is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that advocates for democratic reform, government accountability, and corporate responsibility. DW J.R.’d nine decisions rendered by the Respondent, the Ontario Integrity Commissioner pursuant to the Lobbyists Registration Act (“LRA”) set out in the form of brief summaries in the Commissioner’s Annual Report 2019-2020. The motion judge granted the Commissioner’s motion to quash the nine J.R. applications on the basis DW lacked the public interest standing necessary to bring the applications. DW brought a motion for an order setting aside the motion judge’s decision before a panel of the Divisional Court. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion. DW appealed to the Ont. C.A. and the appeal was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Arbitral Awards: Bias
United Mexican States v. Vento Motorcycles, Inc., 2025 ONCA 82 (41742)
After a tribunal of three arbitrators dismissed a claim by Vento Motorcycles Inc. against the United Mexican States brought under the North American Free Trade Agreement, Vento Motorcycles Inc. learned of conduct involving a member of the tribunal. It brought a motion to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to set aside the arbitral award. The motions judge held the impugned conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias but exercised her discretion not to set aside the award and dismissed the motion. The Ont. C.A. allowed an appeal and set the award aside. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Motions to Strike
Furney, et al. v. Hazan, et al., 2025 ONCA 73 (41745)
Applicants Maryam Furney and Alex Aidan Furney (the “Furneys”) commenced an action against numerous defendants. Two of the named defendants, Respondent Dominion Lending Centres Inc. (hereafter, “Dominion”) and Respondent Samir Chhina, brought motions to strike the Furneys’ claims as against them pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The motion judge granted both motions and struck the claims as against Mr. Chhina and Dominion without leave to amend. The Furneys appealed. The Ont. C.A. for Ontario allowed the appeal as against Mr. Chhina, but dismissed the appeal as against Dominion. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent Dominion Lending Centres Inc. in accordance with the tariff of fees and disbursements set out in Schedule B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Civil Litigation: Motions to Strike
Rebello v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 202 (41798)
In 2018, the Government of Ontario erroneously transferred ownership of the Applicant’s vehicle. While this underlying error had since been resolved, the Applicant has commenced multiple actions against the Government of Ontario in relation to these events, naming the Attorney General, the Premier, and an individual Crown lawyer as defendants. The allegations in this action concern the conduct of the named defendants as well as individual Crown counsel and members of the judiciary. In 2021, the Crown requested the Applicant’s various actions be case-managed. In her response to this request, the Applicant stated she intended to amend her claim in the instant case to add the Crown in right of Ontario as a defendant. The Applicant was not immediately able to amend her claim as intended. While she eventually obtained authorization to do so from the Divisional Court, she commenced a fresh action in 2021 that duplicated the claims from the instant case. That action was dismissed in 2023 following a summary trial. The Respondent then moved to strike the Applicant’s claim in the instant case. The motion judge held that the all of the allegations in the instant case either disclosed no reasonable cause of action or had already been determined and were therefore an abuse of process. These defects were incapable of being cured and the claim was struck without leave to amend. The action was dismissed. The Ont. C.A. saw no reversible error in the motion judge’s reasons and dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Revival of Actions
Rebello v Ontario, 2025 ONCA 127 (41768)
In 2018, the Government of Ontario erroneously transferred ownership of the Applicant’s vehicle. While this underlying error had since been resolved, the Applicant commenced multiple court proceedings against the Government of Ontario in relation to these events, naming the Crown in right of Ontario as defendant. In 2021, the Crown requested the Applicant’s various actions be case-managed. In her response to this request, the Applicant stated she intended to abandon this action by consolidating its allegations into one of the other proceedings. Based on these representations, Myers J. deemed this action abandoned, effectively dismissing it. The Applicant was not immediately able to consolidate the pleadings by amendment as she intended. While she eventually obtained authorization to do so from the Divisional Court, she also commenced a fresh action that accomplished the same thing. That fresh action was dismissed in 2023 following a summary trial; the Applicant appealed dismissal, unsuccessfully. The Applicant now seeks to revive the instant case. She moved before the Ont. C.A. for an extension of time to appeal its dismissal. A single judge of the Ont. C.A. held reviving the action would amount to an abuse of process and denied the motion for an extension of time. The Applicant sought review of this decision by a full panel of the Ont. C.A. The panel, on its own initiative, held the motion itself was an abuse of process and dismissed it. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Class Actions: Damages Offsets
Hirschfield v. R., 2025 FCA 17 (41712)
Mr. Hirschfield, an RCMP constable, was seriously injured in a car accident while on duty. He was granted a disability pension and then settled a civil claim for damages. Veterans Affairs Canada, the administrator of the pension, offset the damages awarded in the civil claim against pension benefits. Mr. Hirschfield commenced an action pleading Veterans Affairs Canada wrongfully offsets pecuniary damages against pension benefits and raising systemic negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. He applied to certify a class proceeding. Manson J. certified the action as a class proceeding. The Fed. C.A. allowed an appeal and dismissed the motion for certification. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Class Actions: Employment Contract No-Hire Clauses
Latifi v. TDL Group Corp., 2025 BCCA 45 (41757)
TDL Group Corp. and its franchisees operated Tim Hortons franchises in Canada. Mr. Lafiti was an employee of a franchise. From 2003 to 2018, TDL Group Corp.’s franchise agreement contained a clause by which franchisees agreed not to hire employees of other franchisees. Mr. Latifi commenced an action alleging the clause advanced a predominant purpose of conspiracy to harm employees by supressing their wages and limiting their employment mobility. The B.C.S.C. dismissed an application to certify the action as a class proceeding. The B.C.C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Contracts: Business Development Commission Clauses
Canada Mining Exchange Company Limited v. Zhaojin Mining Industry Co. Ltd., et al., 2025 ONCA 136 (41746)
The Applicant, Canada Mining Exchange Company Limited (“CME”), entered into an agreement with one of the Respondents, Zhaojin Mining Company Limited (“Zhaojin Mining”). Pursuant to the agreement, CME would introduce Zhaojin Mining to certain business opportunities. If Zhaojin Mining pursued any of the opportunities, CME was entitled to a commission. The agreement contained a confidentiality clause that prevented Zhaojin Mining from communicating with any companies to which they were introduced without CME’s permission. Prior to signing the agreement, CME sent unsolicited information to Zhaojin Mining about Sabina Gold and Silver Corp. (“Sabina”). Two days after signing its contract with Zhaojin Mining, CME sent a publicly available report on Sabina to Zhaojin Mining. Five years later, a transaction between Zhaojin Mining and Sabina took place. CME claimed it had introduced Zhaojin Mining to Sabrina and was therefore entitled to a commission of $8,080,000. Zhaojin Mining and two related companies brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of CME’s claim. The motion judge granted the motion and the Ont. C.A. dismissed the subsequent appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to Zhaojin Mining Industry Co. Ltd. and Zhaojin International Mining Co. Ltd. in accordance with the tariff of fees and disbursements set out in Schedule B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Contracts: Interpretation; Reverse Termination Fees
Chemtrade Electrochem Inc., formerly known as Canexus Corporation v. Superior Plus Corporation, 2025 ABCA 31 (41732)
The Respondent, Superior Plus Corporation (“Superior”), and Canexus Corporation entered into an agreement for Superior to acquire all the shares in Canexus by way of a plan of arrangement. The parties were competitors in the specialty chemicals market, and both knew they would require competition and anti-trust regulatory approval in the United States and Canada to complete the transaction. Ultimately, the transaction did not close and another competitor, Chemtrade Electrochem Inc. (“Chemtrade”), acquired Canexus. Litigation ensued as to whether Chemtrade (who now owns Canexus) was entitled to a reverse termination fee from Superior arising out of the failed deal. The agreement provided for the reverse termination fee if certain defined approvals were not obtained on or prior to a specified date. The trial judge concluded that Superior owed the reverse termination fee. She found one of the relevant approvals had not been obtained. The Alta. C.A. allowed Superior’s appeal. It concluded the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the parties’ agreement by allowing evidence of the parties’ subjective intentions during negotiations to overwhelm the words of the agreement. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Contracts: Repudiation
ID Inc. v. StrategyCorp. Inc., 2024 ONCA 948 (41692)
The Toronto Wholesale Produce Association (“TWPA”) leased land upon which it owned a double-sided static billboard be seen from the Gardiner Expressway. In mid-2012, ID Inc. approached the TWPA with the idea of transforming the billboard into a digital sign. StrategyCorp became involved in those discussions. In March 2013, ID and the TWPA entered into a written sale and maintenance agreement (“SMA”) for the transformation of the sign into a single digital sign. It contained a “Permits” clause which required ID to obtain a permit for the digital sign within 360 days. The TWPA wanted StrategyCorp to be involved in transforming the billboard. When StrategyCorp advised provincial approval was more beneficial than the municipal approval ID was planning to obtain, the TWPA, StrategyCorp and ID decided to pursue provincial approval, so the municipal application was withdrawn. When StrategyCorp indicated a desire to receive a portion of the advertising fees generated by the digital signs, ID reluctantly agreed. In December 2013, that agreement was memorialized in a “Consulting Agreement” between ID and StrategyCorp. It provided ID would pay StrategyCorp a fee “[p]rovided [ID] enters into a written agreement with the [TWPA] regarding the supply, installation and selling of advertising time for the [digital signs]”. By the time it was determined a provincial permit was not available, the relationships between ID and the others had deteriorated. On the understanding the SMA had expired by its own terms because 360 days had passed without a permit, StrategyCorp sent a letter to ID repudiating the Consulting Agreement because it was dependent on the SMA, which had come to an end on its own terms. Neither ID nor its principal responded. With the help of another company, a municipal permit was received in July 2016. ID commenced actions against the TWPA (SCC File No. 41695) and StrategyCorp (this file). There was a single trial but separate appeals. As against the TWPA, the trial judge Merritt J. allowed ID’s action. The trial judge dismissed the action against StrategyCorp. The appeal was dismissed. “Pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, the time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is extended to March 4, 2025. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Contracts: Repudiation
ID Inc. v. Toronto Wholesale Produce Association, 2025 ONCA 22 (41695)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Contempt of Court
Davidson v. R., 2025 BCCA 111 (41756)
The Applicant opposed the old-growth logging on southern Vancouver Island. The Applicant was a Kwakwaka’wakw (Da’naxda’xw) person and a member of the Da’naxda’xw First Nation. Since 2022, she has served as Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada. She was convicted of seven counts of criminal contempt of court. The Applicant received a cumulative sentence of 60 days’ imprisonment (less 12 days’ credit for pre-sentence custody), plus 18 months’ probation with 75 hours of community work service. The appeal was allowed and the sentence varied. The B.C.C.A. imposed a cumulative sentence of 51 days’ imprisonment, 18 months’ probation, and 75 hours of community service. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Driving Causing Death
R. v. Rioux, 2025 QCCA 350 (41824)
This Leave is a sentencing case in which Ms. Rioux pleaded guilty to a charge of causing death while driving with an alcohol level in her blood exceeding the legal limit. The parties agreed on the length of the sentence but not on the manner in which that sentence will be served. The trial judge found Ms. Rioux did not represent a danger to the safety of the community. However, with the goal of satisfying the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, an unconditional prison sentence had to be ordered. In the Qué. C.A.’s view, the judge committed an error in principle in giving definitive weight to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. That error by the judge was sufficient to warrant the intervention of the court. Consequently, it substituted a sentence of imprisonment of two years less a day to be served in the community for the sentence. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Right to Counsel
Hunter v. R., 2023 ABCA 201 (41793)
The victim was beaten and thrown off a bridge into the North Saskatchewan River, leading to her death. Three individuals were charged with her death. One of the co-accused testified and implicated the Indigenous Applicant in the victim’s death. The Applicant made a statement to the police. The Applicant submitted her police statement was improperly admitted into evidence due to a breach of her s. 10(b) right to counsel. The trial judge found no breach, and admitted the Applicant’s statement into evidence. The Applicant was convicted of first degree murder. The Alta. C.A. agreed that the Applicant’s s. 10(b) right was not breached, and dismissed the conviction 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.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
Siciliano v. R., 2025 QCCA 335 (41792)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of a sentencing appeal for sexual assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Offences
Moreno v. R., 2024 QCCA 1746 (41668)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual interference and assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Threats; Criminal Harassment
Babadi v. R., 2025 ONCA 209 (41812)
There is a sealing order in this case, in the context of uttering threats to cause bodily harm. “The motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument is granted. The motion to file a lengthy reply is granted. The motion to seal the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Employment Law: Employment Agreements
Brown v. Sprague, et al., 2025 ABCA 41 (41721)
The Applicant was an associate lawyer at a law firm, where he developed a personal and professional relationship with the Respondents, who were clients of the firm. An opportunity arose for the Applicant to join the corporate Respondent, Sprague-Rosser Contracting Co. Ltd., as its General Counsel. The Applicant drafted his own employment agreement and presented it to the Respondents for signature. The terms of the agreement entitled the Applicant to purchase shares in the corporate Respondent. At trial, the Applicant testified he advised the Respondents to obtain independent legal advice on the draft agreement; the Respondents testified he did not. The Applicant resigned from his employment with Sprague-Rosser after approximately seven months, before purchasing any shares in the company. He alleged he was constructively dismissed and commenced an action against the Respondents to enforce the employment agreement. The trial judge found the provisions of the employment agreement were uncertain as to essential terms of the share purchase, rendering the agreement unenforceable and void. He further held the Applicant failed to recommend independent legal advice to the Respondents, a breach of his fiduciary duty which also voided the agreement. For other reasons, the trial judge held the Applicant was constructively dismissed and entitled to common law notice from Sprague-Rosser and allowed the action to that extent. The action against the remaining Respondents was dismissed. The Alta. C.A. found no error in either of the bases on which the trial judge found the employment agreement to be unenforceable and dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Child Protection
Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du CIUSSS A (Santé Québec) v. A, et al., 2025 QCCA 377 (41841)
There is a publication ban in this case, and certain information is not available to the public, in the context of encroachment upon rights issues re child protection. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent X.”
Family Law: Child Support
Ward v. Murphy, 2025 NSCA 5 (41771)
The parties had a child born in 2015. The Applicant had been steadily employed until shortly before the child’s birth and he owned several rental properties. In November 2015, an interim order required the Applicant to pay child support of $1,200 per month, but did not state the income attributed to the Applicant in order to set that payment. In 2017, shared parallel parenting was ordered with primary care to the Respondent; child support set at $994 per month payable by the Applicant as of April 1, 2017. Several years later, the Applicant applied to vary the child support. He gave evidence the rental properties were held by a company of which he was the sole shareholder, officer and director. The application to vary the child support order was granted. As there had been a material error in calculating the amount of pre-tax corporate income to be imputed to the Applicant, the appeal was allowed in part and a rehearing was ordered in relation to that aspect of the matter and costs were also to be redetermined. Upon rehearing, the child support order was varied and costs in the amount of $15,520 were awarded to the Respondent. On appeal, a motion to adduce new evidence and the appeal were dismissed. “The motion to extend the time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Foreign Arbitral Awards: State Immunity
The Republic of India, et al. v. CCDM Holdings, LLC, et al., 2024 QCCA 1620 (41660)
The Respondents were plaintiffs in continuance of proceedings against the Applicants. The Respondents sought recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards against assets of the Applicants held by a third party in Canada. A judge of the Superior Court of Québec authorized seizure before judgment by garnishment on an ex parte basis. Another judge quashed the seizure before judgment on the basis the claim of one Applicant, the Airports Authority of India, of state immunity must be determined first. The Superior Court concluded the other Applicant, the Republic of India, had waived its state immunity. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the Republic of India’s appeal and upheld the conclusion it had waived its state immunity. The Qué. C.A. allowed the Respondents’ appeal against the Airports Authority of India and reinstated the seizure before judgment. “The applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed with costs.”
Import/Export: Replica Firearms
Byrne v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2025 FCA 30 (41740)
Applicant James B. Byrne attempted to import an airsoft pistol into Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency detained the pistol on the basis it met the definition of a replica firearm under s. 84(1) of the Criminal Code and was therefore a prohibited device per tariff item 9898.00.00 of the schedule to the Customs Tariff. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal dismissed Mr. Byrne’s appeal. The Fed. C.A. dismissed Mr. Byrne’s J.R. “The motion to file a lengthy reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Labour Law: Breach of Contract
Speckling v. Local 76 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada, et al., 2025 BCCA 133 (41723)
The Applicant and his brother were employed in positions that required maintaining membership in good standing with the Respondent union local. Relations between and among the national union, the union local and union members were governed by a union constitution. During a labour dispute, the union local enacted a ban on working overtime, with which the Applicant and his brother disagreed. In response to the union local’s disciplinary actions against his brother, the Applicant laid multiple charges under the union’s constitution against members of the union local’s executive. The union local counter-charged the Applicant with laying frivolous or vexatious charges. The charges and counter-charges were referred to the Respondent national union, which found the Applicant guilty of the counter-charges. The Applicant pursued numerous civil claims, including an allegation of breach of contract. The B.C.S.C. summarily dismissed his claim in breach of contract as having no merit. The B.C.C.A. dismissed his appeal. “The motions for an extension of time filed by the respondents Local 76 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada and Communications, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada are granted. The motion to permit Bernardus Speckling to represent the applicant is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers’ Union of Canada.”
Labour Law/Charter: Freedom of Association
Centrale des syndicats démocratiques (CSD), et al. v. Attorney General of Québec, et al., 2025 QCCA 216 (41781)
Three groups of Applicants brought applications challenging the constitutionality and validity of sections of a Québec Act respecting the representation of family type resources and certain intermediate resources and the negotiation process for their group agreements (“ARR”). They alleged the impugned provisions of the ARR infringed the freedom of association guaranteed to them by s. 2(d) of the Charter and s. 3 of the Charter of human rights and freedoms (“Québec Charter”). The Superior Court found ss. 46 and 53 of the ARR infringed the freedom of association of intermediate resources and family type resources, a right protected by s. 2(d) of the Charter and s. 3 of the Québec Charter, by depriving them of the right to strike without giving them access to a meaningful and effective dispute resolution mechanism. In so doing, the ARR substantially interfered with their right to bargain collectively with respect to their remuneration and other operating conditions, and this interference not justified under s. 1 of the Charter or s. 9.1 of the Québec Charter. The Qué. C.A. held the service provider status of intermediate resources and family type resources does not permit them to aspire to the specific associational rights that s. 2(d) of the Charter and s. 3 of the Québec Charter reserve for employees. The special conditions of intermediate resources and family type resources do not entitle them to be considered employees on an exceptional basis. “The motions for intervention filed by Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, Fédération des médecins omnipraticiens du Québec and Canadian Medical Association are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Municipal Law: Payment in Lieu of Tax
Laval (City) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 46 (41775)
In 2017, the Government of Canada, represented by the Respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, was contemplating, through Public Services and Procurement Canada (Public Services), building an immigration holding centre on lands it owned in the Applicant city, Ville de Laval (City). For this purpose, the Government applied to the City for a building permit. In accordance with the Act respecting land use planning and development, the City passed a zoning and subdivision bylaw that allowed it to require a [translation] “contribution for park purposes” (CPP) when the permit in question was issued. The objective behind the CPP was to cover certain public expenditures, such as for creating, expanding or maintaining parks, playgrounds or natural spaces. Public Services refused to pay the CPP because properties of the federal Crown enjoy constitutional immunity (exempt from any provincial and municipal taxation under s. 125 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and also allegedly benefit from interjurisdictional immunity). The City then applied to the federal authorities for a payment in lieu of taxes (PLT) under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act (PLTA). Public Services denied the PLT in lieu of the CPP on the basis this contribution did not meet the criteria for the PLTA scheme and it therefore had no authority to grant a PLT in the circumstances. The Fed. Court dismissed the application for J.R., and the Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Prisons: Discipline
Imona-Russel v. Zap, 2025 ONCA 161 (41750)
The Applicant was a federally incarcerated offender serving a life sentence for first degree murder. He commenced an action for damages arising from a disciplinary proceeding presided over by the Respondent, in his capacity as an independent chairperson of Warkworth Institution. The Applicant’s motion for an order appointing state-funded counsel was dismissed. The Respondent’s motion to strike the Applicant’s claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or for being frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process was granted. The subsequent appeal was dismissed. “It is not necessary to consider the motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal. The various requests for miscellaneous relief are dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Professions: Alleged Misconduct
Adingni, et al. v. Chokki, et al., 2025 QCCA 104 (41729)
The Applicants, Arlette Adjovi Adingni and Horacio Sedjro Quenum, hired the Respondent Ariel Chokki, an accountant and tax specialist working for the Respondent Colour Dome Montréal Cabinet de Services Conseils inc. (“Colour Dome”), to prepare some of their tax returns. In May 2017, the Applicants received a request for information and documents from Revenu Québec for the child care expenses reported in their respective returns for 2013 and 2014. Because they were not satisfied with the answers provided by Mr. Chokki, the Applicants did not follow through on the request from Revenu Québec, which was claiming reimbursement from them of advance payments for child care expenses, with interest and penalties. The Applicants then brought a civil liability action against the Respondents, alleging professional misconduct in the preparation of their 2013 and 2014 tax returns. The Applicants claimed the amounts demanded by Revenu Québec as well moral damages, punitive damages and reimbursement of their extrajudicial fees. The Respondents, for their part, filed a cross application claiming damages based on the defamatory nature of certain allegations in the originating application, which thus allegedly harmed their reputations. The Superior Court dismissed the Applicants’ originating application and allowed the Respondents’ cross application in part. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Respondents $5K. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Property: Rule Against Perpetuities
Ottawa (City) v. ClubLink Corporation ULC, 2025 ONCA 34 (41720)
In 1981, the City of Kanata granted authority to develop lands to Campeau Corporation. The parties entered into an agreement which in part required 40% of the property be used as open space and a golf course be operated in perpetuity on the open space lands. Ottawa (City) v. ClubLink Corporation ULC, 2021 ONCA 847, declared two provisions in the agreement to be void for offending the rule against perpetuities and remitted the matter to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to determine the impact of voiding those provisions on the remainder of agreement and related contracts. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared additional provisions inoperative. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Tax: GAAR
Madison Pacific Properties Inc. v. R., 2025 FCA 20 (41722)
Through a series of transactions, an insolvent mining company was reorganized and re-named Madison Pacific Properties Inc. It became a shell but for losses. Madison Venture Corporation and Vanac Development Corp. acquired all non-voting shares and under half of its voting shares. Madison Pacific Properties Inc. carried on a new real estate business. It used capital loss carry-forwards and non-capital losses to reduce income and capital gains reported in income tax returns, including in 2009, 2011 and 2013. The Minister of National Revenue reassessed those three years, applied the general anti-avoidance rule, and disallowed the deductions. The Tax Court of Canada and the Fed. C.A. dismissed appeals. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”