Granted
Municipal Law: Assessment Roll Classifications
Ville de Québec v. Jardins de Vérone s.e.c., 2025 QCCA 123 (41748)
The Respondent, Les Jardins de Vérone S.E.C., was the owner of land situated in the territory of the Applicant, Ville de Québec. The land had “serviced vacant land” that appeared in the information on the unit of assessment on the assessment roll. On March 1, 2018, the Respondent received a construction permit from the City for the erection of a building of 109 dwellings. The work started on April 1, 2018, and occurred without interruption from that date. In July 2018, the Respondent applied to the City’s assessment department to have “serviced vacant land” withdrawn from the information on the assessment roll. In October 2018, the municipal assessor’s representative replied to the application in the negative on the ground no action had been omitted by the assessor with regard to ss. 32 and 244.36 of the Act respecting municipal taxation, so no alteration was needed. The Respondent then brought an application before the Administrative Tribunal of Québec (ATQ) under s. 131.2 of the AMT seeking to have the municipal assessor alter the information on the roll, in accordance with ss. 174 para. 13.1.1(a), 57.1.1 and 244.36 of the AMT. The building was not entered on the roll until early summer of 2019. On December 16, 2019, the ATQ rendered a decision in which it agreed with the Respondent by confirming that once a building is situated on land, the assessor must alter the roll by withdrawing “serviced vacant land”, regardless of its value. The ATQ ordered the withdrawal of “serviced vacant land” from the assessment roll retroactively from the date of the beginning of the work. The Court of Québec allowed the City’s appeal. The Superior Court dismissed the J.R. The Qué. C.A. allowed the appeal. It set aside the decisions of the Court of Québec and the Superior Court and restored the ATQ’s decision. “The motion for leave to intervene in the leave application, filed by the Attorney General of Quebec, is dismissed, without prejudice to his 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
Aboriginal Law: Specific Claims Tribunal Jurisdiction
Waterhen Lake First Nation v. Canada, 2025 FCA 49 (41787)
The Waterhen Lake First Nation filed a Claim with the Specific Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for losses from the taking of commercial harvesting rights by s. 12 of The Natural Resources Transfer Agreement. The claim addressed the taking of 2,900,000 acres of traditional lands for the Primrose Lake Air Weapons Range and for the loss of lands on which the First Nation held commercial trapping licences. The Crown brought an application to strike the claim under s. 17 of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act in whole, without leave to amend, on the basis it was plain, obvious and beyond doubt the claim could not succeed because it was outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Specific Claims Tribunal granted the application to strike, and the Fed. C.A. dismissed the First Nation’s J.R. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Hutton v. Sayat, et al., 2025 FCA 66 (41827)
The Respondent Attorney General of Canada brought an application, pursuant to s. 40 of the Federal Courts Act to have the Applicant declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from commencing litigation without leave. Canada also asked ongoing proceedings be quashed or discontinued. The Fed. Court granted the application. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeals. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Ria Sayat, in the amount of $1,000.00.”
Criminal Law: Homicide; Jury Charges
St-Jean v. R., 2025 QCCA 178 (41900)
First degree murder charges were laid against the Applicant and one other individual. Circumstantial evidence was presented by the Crown, which evidence gave details of the actions of the two co-accused before, during and after a victim was found, fatally wounded by a projectile from a firearm, in her apartment block. There was no direct evidence of identification. The trial took place before a jury. On two separate preliminary motions, the Québec Superior Court judge allowed the admission of evidence of a post on Facebook against Mr. St Jean and acquitted the two co accused of first degree murder. He ordered the continuation of the trial on the counts of second degree murder. The co-accused were convicted of manslaughter. The Qué. C.A. found the Superior Court judge had committed two errors: (1) too extensive an assessment of the evidence, and, in doing so, usurped the function of the jury; and (2) improperly assessed the inferences that could be drawn from the after the fact conduct of the two co-accused. The Qué. C.A. ordered a new trial on a charge of first degree murder for the two co-accused. “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.”
Employment Law: Profit Sharing Programs on Termination
Kirke v. Spartan Controls Ltd., 2025 ABCA 40 (41749)
The Applicant was terminated from his position at the Respondent company. The Applicant applied for summary judgment regarding damages owed to him by the Respondent for failure to provide reasonable notice of termination. The parties disagreed on whether the Applicant’s damages should also include loss of payments received as a participant in the optional shareholder profit sharing (“SHPS”) program. Applying Matthews v. Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd., 2020 SCC 26, the summary trial judge first found the SHPS payments were a part of the Applicant’s compensation as an employee. At the second step of Matthews, the trial judge held because the unanimous shareholder agreement unambiguously authorized the company to buy back employee-owned shares at any time on 90 days’ notice, the Applicant’s damages for the loss of SHPS payments during the reasonable notice period were likewise limited, following the principle in Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery, 2004 SCC 9, a defendant’s least onerous method of performing a contract should be the basis for calculating damages. The Alta. C.A. unanimously dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Employment/Municipal Law: Limitation Periods
Edge v. Moose Jaw Downtown and Soccer/Field House Inc., et al., 2025 SKCA 17 (41761)
The Respondent, Moose Jaw Downtown and Soccer/Field House Inc. (“DSFH”) was a non-profit corporation established by the City of Moose Jaw. The individual Respondents were members of its board of directors. The Applicant, Graham Edge, was hired as the general manager and dismissed not long after. He commenced an action for wrongful dismissal against DSFH and the directors. A chambers judge found the one-year limitation period in s. 307(1) of The Cities Act applied to a wrongful dismissal claim against a city-controlled corporation and its directors. In assessing the claim against DFHF, the chambers judge distinguished Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 281, and relied on Platana v. Saskatoon (City), 2006 SKCA 10 to conclude that s. 307(1) of The Cities Act established the governing limitation period. The Sask. C.A. dismissed the appeal of the order striking the claim against DSFH. It agreed with the chambers judge the Des Champs decision was distinguishable because s. 307(1) of The Cities Act was not similarly worded to the limitations provision at issue in Des Champs. It allowed the appeal of the order striking the claim against the directors, holding the chambers judge erred in summarily determining the limitation period in s. 307(1) of The Cities Act applied to the claims against the directors. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Real Property: Transfer Tax
Bakhtiari, et al. v. British Columbia, (Minister of Finance), et al., 2025 BCCA 67 (41807)
Mr. Bakhtiari was a citizen of Iran. In 1995, he came to Canada and obtained refugee status. He was the sole shareholder, director and officer of Technocorp Venture Capital Inc. Under the Property Transfer Tax Act a corporation controlled by a foreign national acquires residential property within specified geographic areas must pay additional property transfer tax. Technocorp Venture Capital Inc. acquired residential property in a specified area. B.C. assessed additional transfer tax. Mr. Bakhtiara commenced an action seeking a declaration the additional transfer tax breaches ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter. The B.C.S.C. granted an application to strike the claims. The B.C.C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”