Granted
Class Actions: Multi-Jurisdictional
NHK Spring Co., Ltd., et al. v. Cheung, et al., 2024 BCCA 236 (41451)
These Leaves arose out of the certification of a national class action alleging the Applicants engaged in an international price-fixing conspiracy. The claim alleged common law conspiracy, a cause of action under s. 36 of the Competition Act, restitution, and unjust enrichment. The Applicants brought an application to stay or dismiss the proceedings on the basis the court lacked territorial competence or jurisdiction. The courts below dismissed the jurisdictional challenge and certified the proceedings as a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
Dismissed
Civil Litigation: Motions to Strike
Gutierrez v. York University, 2023 ONSC 4089 (41904)
Mr. Gutierrez filed a statement of claim against York University pled allegations including civil fraud, conspiracy, slander, harassment, criminal liability and breach of duty of care. Associate Justice Jolley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a motion to strike the claim, with leave to amend. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed an appeal. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) dismissed a motion for leave to appeal. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is quashed pursuant to s. 44 of the Supreme Court Act.”
Criminal Law: Dangerous Offenders
Bradette v. R., 2025 QCCA 571 (41845)
Publication ban. “The motion for exemption from compliance with the rules is moot. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The applicant’s motion to appoint counsel pursuant to s. 694.1 of the Criminal Code is dismissed. The applicant’s motion to appoint an amicus curiae is dismissed. The time to serve and file the reply is extended to July 31, 2025, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. The motion to remand the case is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Dangerous Offenders
Bradette v. R., et al., 2025 QCCA 571 (41932)
Publication ban. “The motion for exemption from compliance with the rules is moot. The applicant’s motion to appoint counsel pursuant to s. 694.1 of the Criminal Code or to appoint an amicus curiae is dismissed. The time to serve and file the replies are extended to September 23, 2025, and October 3, 2025, pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Extradition
Poirier v. Minister of Justice of Canada, et al., 2025 QCCA 700 (41915)
The U.S. requested the Applicant’s extradition. The extradition judge ordered the Applicant’s committal into custody. That decision was not appealed, but the Applicant asked the Minister of Justice of Canada to refuse or to postpone the date of surrender. The Minister signed an order of surrender, and the Applicant applied to the Qué. C.A. for J.R. A few weeks before the scheduled hearing date for J.R, the Qué. C.A. granted a motion by the lawyer then acting for the Applicant and deferred the hearing for a few months. The Applicant retained a new lawyer, but that lawyer was later authorized to cease representing him, a few days before the new hearing date. The Qué. C.A. denied a new request for an adjournment so the Applicant could find a third lawyer. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the J.R. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
Guapacha v. R., 2025 QCCA 344 (41899)
There is a publication ban in this case; certain information not available to the public; in the context of video evidence and alleged failure to raise constitutionality of s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Interference
R. v. O.B., 2025 QCCA 512 (41878)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual interference and defence of “confabulation”. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Real Property/Leases: Limitation Periods
Messica v. 6971971 Canada Inc., et al. 2025 ONCA 514 (41948)
The Respondent corporation was formerly the tenant of a commercial property the Applicant owned. The individual Respondents personally guaranteed the corporation’s obligations under the lease, and granted a mortgage against real property to secure that guarantee. The lease required the Respondents to complete certain upgrades to the property. The Respondents attempted to assign the lease to another tenant in 2019. However, a dispute arose between the parties as to whether the Respondents had completed the upgrading work and the Applicant refused to consent to the assignment. The Respondents sought and obtained a court order overriding the Applicant’s refusal to assign the lease, and the assignment was completed on April 16, 2020. The Applicant never discharged the mortgage registered against the individual Respondents’ property. In early 2024, the Respondents requested he do so, but were refused. The Respondents commenced an application for an order to discharge the mortgage. On March 31, 2024, the Applicant commenced a cross-application for damages arising from the Respondents’ alleged failure to complete the upgrading work. The application judge held the Applicant’s claim was statute-barred as the two-year limitation period for claims for breach of the lease had expired. The mere fact the personal guarantees were secured by a charge on real property did not trigger the application of the ten-year limitation period in the Real Property Limitations Act, since the connection to real property was merely incidental to a claim for breach of contract. The cross-application was dismissed. The Ont. C.A. found no error and dismissed an appeal. “The motion for an order staying proceedings with respect to the judgment at first instance is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Real Property: Mortgages; Forced Surrender
Lacroix v. Larkin, 2025 QCCA 25 (41714)
The creditor served an originating application for forced surrender and taking in payment pursuant to arts. 2788 et seq. of the Civil Code of Québec. The debtor filed a statement of defence raising arguments denying the court’s jurisdiction and arguing the Civil Code of Québec never entered into force and the rules set out therein therefore could not be invoked. A judge of the trial court declared the debtor’s defences constituted an abuse of process under art. 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court allowed the application for forced surrender and taking in payment. The Qué. C.A. allowed the creditor’s application for dismissal of the appeal on the ground the debtor’s appeal had no reasonable chance of success. It also declared the debtor’s notice of appeal constituted an abuse of process. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Tax: Statue-barred Assessments
Csak v. R., 2025 FCA 60 (41810)
The Minister of National Revenue assessed Ms. Csak’s taxes under s. 160 of the Income Tax Act. Ms. Csak appealed the assessment. In 1993, Ms. Csak’s husband had transferred real property valued at $950K to her for no consideration. At the time, he owed unpaid tax and interest for the 1988-1991 taxation years. Ms. Csak challenged the assessment on the basis, inter alia, the underlying reassessments for her husband’s 1988 and 1989 taxation years were statute-barred, so Ms. Csak could not have derivative liability for those years. For the 1989 taxation year, the normal reassessment period ended on May 30, 1993, a Sunday. The deceased executed his waiver on May 27, 1993, and it was received on May 31, 1993. The Tax Court judge found the 1988 reassessment was statute-barred. The reassessment of the deceased’s 1989 taxes was also statute-barred because s. 26 of the Interpretation Act which provided “[w]here the time limited for the doing of a thing expires or falls on a holiday, the thing may be done on the day next following that is not a holiday”, did not apply. The Fed. C.A. allowed the Minister’s appeal and referred the assessment of the deceased’s 1989 taxation year back to the Minister for reconsideration and reassessment on the basis s. 26 applied and the reassessment was not statute-barred. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”