Granted
Criminal Law: Search
R. v. Chemlal, 2025 QCCA 302 (41766)
The police conducted a routine check of the Respondent, Mr. Chemlal, with a view to giving him a statement of offence for an offence under the Highway Safety Code. A firearm was discovered as a result of a pat down search conducted in an impromptu manner, while the Respondent was waiting for his statement of offence to be issued. He was immediately placed under arrest for possession of a firearm. Subsequently, during the admission process at the operational centre, the police discovered crack cocaine. The Respondent argued the pat down search was abusive and rendered his arrest, as well as the searches that followed, unlawful. He brought a motion to exclude the evidence at first instance based on alleged infringements of his rights guaranteed by the Charter. The trial judge dismissed the motion. The Respondent was then convicted of three counts, that is, possession and concealed carrying of a prohibited firearm and possession of crack cocaine. He appealed the conviction. The majority of the Qué. C.A. allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and ordered acquittals. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”
Dismissed
Civil Litigation: What Can/Cannot Be Challenged on J.R.
Northback Holdings Corporation v. Alberta Energy and Joint Review Panel for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project acting in its capacity as the Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 ABCA 186 (41851)
The Applicant, Northback Holdings Corporation, was a corporation that sought to develop an open pit coal extraction project in Alberta. Pursuant to the Responsible Energy Development Act (the “REDA”), the project required the approval of the Respondent Alberta Energy Regulator (the “AER”). AER denied the project. The Applicant exercised their right under s. 45 of REDA to seek leave to appeal AER’s decision to the Alta. C.A. on a question of law. This application was dismissed, as was an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Applicant then filed J.R. of AER’s decision. AER moved to strike the application based on the privative clause in s. 56 of the REDA, which bars review of AER’s decisions except through the statutory right of appeal. The application judge granted the motion and dismissed the J.R., holding the limited right of appeal and privative clause in REDA, the constitutionality of which the Applicant did not challenge, were institutional design choices that reviewing courts must respect. The Alta. C.A. dismissed an appeal, holding the Applicant’s arguments amounted to a constitutional challenge it was inappropriate to adjudicate for the first time on appeal, in the absence of a factual record. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: What Can/Cannot Be Challenged on J.R.
Stoney Nakoda Nations v. Alberta Energy Regulator, et al., 2025 ABCA 186 (41874)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: What Can/Cannot Be Challenged on J.R.
Piikani Nation v. Alberta Energy Regulator, et al., 2025 ABCA 186 (41876)
Similar summary to that immediately above. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Sentencing
Normand v. R., 2025 QCCA 528 (41877)
After having spent one week consuming drugs, the Applicant Mr. Normand, who was experiencing hallucinations, stabbed his mother to death. Mr. Normand’s remarks in the hours following his arrest supported the inference he was intoxicated at the time of the events. A psychiatrist who testified as an expert for the defence stated it was not found Mr. Normand suffered from any psychiatric problems. He was convicted of manslaughter, in the absence of the specific intent to be found guilty of second degree murder. In submissions as to the sentence, the prosecutor argued Mr. Normand should serve a 15-year sentence. The defence argued seven years. The Québec Superior Court analyzed the mitigating and aggravating factors, considered the average of the sentences imposed by that court in similar cases and imposed a sentence on Mr. Normand of 13 years less preventive detention. A majority of the Qué. C.A. was of the opinion the trial judge had not committed an error that could lead to the varying of the sentence. Since the weighing of various factors is the responsibility of the trial judge; there was no reason to intervene. The dissenting judge was of the opinion the judge had committed an error in principle in failing to consider, as a mitigating circumstance, the drug addiction problem Mr. Normand suffered from. Since that error had an impact on the sentence, he would have reduced the sentence to nine years. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Divorce; Support; Property Division
I.R. v. G.D., 2025 QCCA 263 (41799)
There is a publication ban on the party; certain information is not available to the public; in the context of divorce, support, and property issues. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Real Property: Oral Agreements Re Land
2380673 Ontario Inc. v. 2730453 Ontario Inc., 2025 ONCA 112 (41758)
The Respondent, 2730453 Ontario Inc. (“purchaser”), wished to purchase a 32-acre lot owned by the Applicant, 2380673 Ontario Inc. (“owner”), situated adjacent to property the purchaser already owned in Milton, Ontario. The unchallenged findings of the trial judge were that there was a binding oral sale agreement reached by the parties in September 2019. The parties were engaged thereafter in a process of closing the agreement. On the closing date, the purchaser tendered the required documents and funds, and the owner refused to close without legal justification. The purchaser claimed for specific performance. The owner relied on the Statute of Frauds, as rendering the oral sale agreement unenforceable. The trial judge found there was part performance and detriment sufficient to make it inequitable for the owner to rely on the Statute of Frauds, and therefore the oral sale agreement should be enforced. On appeal, the owner contended the detrimental reliance aspect of the doctrine of part performance was not satisfied. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal, concluding the trial judge did not err in finding the purchaser’s performance amounted to part performance that was to its detriment, and it would be inequitable to permit the owner to rely on the Statute of Frauds. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Torts: MVA; SABs; Time Extensions
Landa v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, et al., 2025 ONCA 184 (41803)
Following an MVA, Ms. Landa applied for SAB’s pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Accidents. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company denied certain benefits. Ms. Landa applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The Tribunal held some claims were barred by a limitations period, denied extensions of time, dismissed the remaining claims on their merits, and denied reconsiderations of its decisions. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed appeals and applications for J.R. A judge of the Ont. C.A. denied an extension of time to perfect an appeal and the Ont. C.A. dismissed an application to have a panel review the denial of an extension of time. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”