Granted
Prisons: Rotational Lockdowns
Diggs, et al. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), et al., 2025 NSCA 20 (41801)
Applicants Durrell Diggs and Ryan Taylor Wilband were both inmates on remand at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. At the relevant time, the facility was suffering staffing shortages which resulted in rotational lockdowns of inmates. The Applicants brought habeas corpus applications arguing the rotational lockdowns unlawfully deprived them of their residual liberty. The application judge declared the lockdowns were unlawful. The Respondent Attorney General of Nova Scotia appealed. The Nova Scotia C.A. allowed the appeals and set the declarations aside. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted.”
Dismissed
Civil Litigation: Covid-19; Abuse of Process
Lapierre v. Dallaire, et al., 2025 QCCA 125 (41831)
Mr. Lapierre sued the Respondents for damages and interest in connection with a request to verify his COVID-19 vaccination record for access the Brossard Chevrolet Buick GMC inc. (“Brossard Chevrolet”) dealership pursuant to a government order in force at the time. The Superior Court declared Mr. Lapierre’s application against General Motors of Canada Company (GM Canada) and Mr. Dallaire, president of Brossard Chevrolet, inadmissible, declared his application against Mr. Dallaire and Brossard Chevrolet abusive and ordered Mr. Lapierre to pay Brossard Chevrolet $15K as damages for abuse of process. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the application for leave to appeal from a judgment that terminated a proceeding because the criteria for granting leave to appeal were not met — the appeal was doomed to fail and did not raise any question of interest. “The motion for an extension of time to serve the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Oleynik v. Memorial University of Newfoundland, et al., 2025 NLCA 22 (41868)
The Applicant, Anton Oleynik, and the Respondent, Memorial University of Newfoundland (“Memorial”), have been engaged in litigation since 2017. Memorial subsequently filed an application seeking, inter alia, to have Mr. Oleynik declared a vexatious litigant. Mr. Oleynik sought leave to cross-examine Memorial’s legal counsel and the individuals who swore the affidavits filed in support of that application. The application judge denied Mr. Oleynik leave to cross-examine and declared him a vexatious litigant. Mr. Oleynik appealed the decisions. The N.L. C.A. held the application judge made no error in denying leave to cross-examine and in relying on the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador’s inherent jurisdiction to declare Mr. Oleynik a vexatious litigant. The extensive record before the judge demonstrated abuse of process. The N.L. C.A. dismissed both appeals. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Memorial University of Newfoundland.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Offences
W.M.M. v. R., 2024 ABCA 362 (41895)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual offences and other offences. “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.”
Tax: Audit Process
Gravel, et al. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, et al., 2025 QCCA 785 (41886)
In 2010, a file was opened in Revenu Québec’s investigations unit concerning the Applicants. That investigation was then abandoned. Shortly thereafter, in 2011, Revenu Québec started an audit process pursuant to the powers of inspection granted by the legislation. Audit reports were made and the file was referred to investigations. It was alleged the Applicants used a scheme with the aim of profiting from tax refunds and credits by means of invoices of convenience. The Applicants first sought to obtain supplementary disclosure. That application was allowed in part. In the context of their Jarvis motion, the trial judge established the separation point between the audit and the investigations was November 8, 2011. Since the audits continued after that point, the judge excluded the evidence obtained after that date. Following the trial, the trial judge convicted the Applicants of the offences as charged. The Superior Court found the trial judge had not erred in his analysis, as did the Qué. C.A. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”