Dismissed
Civil Litigation: Permission to Appeal
Christofi v. Newcombe, et al., 2025 ABCA 178 (41871)
Mr. Christofi filed notices of appeal from provincial court judgments in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. The Court of King’s Bench struck the notices but noted Mr. Christofi could apply for leave to re-file them in accordance with conditions set out in an earlier court order. The Alta. C.A. dismissed Mr. Christofi’s application for permission to appeal. “The motion for miscellaneous relief is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Permission to Appeal
Habib, et al. v. Habib, et al., 2025 ABCA 243 (41956)
In trial proceedings, Ashcroft J. of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta granted an adjournment and made scheduling directions. In the same proceedings, Devlin J. ordered Azmin Habib and Shahin Habib to serve affidavits by a set date, to pay a penalty, and to pay proceeds of sales into court. Azmin and Shahin Habib applied for a stay of Devlin J.’s order pending an appeal, and for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal from Ashcroft J.’s order. A judge of the Alta. C.A. dismissed the applications, awarded costs, and denied leave to appeal to a panel of the Alta. C.A. “It is not necessary to address the motion for an extension of time to serve and file application for leave to appeal. The motion for stays of costs is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Litigation: Procedural Unfairness; Reasonableness
Mirza, et al. v. Law Society of Ontario, et al., 2025 ONCA 464 (41833)
In November 2021, the Respondent Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) administered licensing examinations to candidates. It later learned the integrity of those exams had been compromised. The LSO directed one of its departments to review the exams. The review led to anomalies being identified and suggesting some candidates had advance access to a cheating key that duplicated the exam questions and provided answers. The LSO retained external counsel to investigate the characters of those candidates. Following the investigation, the LSO decided to deem void both the identified candidates’ exam (“exam decision”) and their registrations in the LSO licencing process (“registration decision”). Both the exam decision and the registration decisions were made pursuant to the LSO licencing by-law, rules, and protocols. Some of the identified candidates, including the Applicants, brought applications for J.R. The Divisional Court concluded the exam decision was reasonable. However, it determined in making the registration decision, the LSO breached the Applicants’ rights to procedural fairness because it made that decision without holding hearings and without making findings as to whether the Applicants had engaged in intentional misconduct. The Ont. C.A. allowed the LSO’s appeal. It determined there had been no procedural unfairness on the part of the LSO. The Ont. C.A. also dismissed a subsequent motion brought by many of the Applicants to re-open the appeal, concluding its decision did address the reasonableness of the LSO’s decision. “The applicant Faiqa Mirza’s motion for a stay of costs is dismissed. The other applicants’ motion for an extension of time to serve and file their application for leave to appeal is granted. Both applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed without costs.”
Civil Litigation: Service
Kidd v. Osadchuk, et al., 2025 ABCA 125 (41844)
The Respondents claim the Applicant defrauded them by inducing them to invest US$48M in a business that would install, manage and operate banking kiosks throughout the United States. The Respondents say after some initial distributions of cash, the Applicant stopped making distributions and stopped communicating with them, in suspicious circumstances. The Respondents sued to recover their losses. The Applicant says the Respondents did not validly serve him or the other parties below before the claim expired and the claim was now a nullity. The Respondents say they have effectively served the claim. The lower courts found the Applicant was effectively served. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Class Actions: Opioids; Jurisdiction
Groupe Jean Coutu (PJC) inc., et al. v. British Columbia, et al., 2025 BCCA 80 (41821)
British Columbia commenced a class action to recover health care costs incurred by reason of its citizens’ opioid use since 1996. This action included more than 40 defendants, including Groupe Jean Coutu (PJC) inc. and Pro Doc Ltd., that supposedly manufactured or distributed opioids. Pro Doc and Jean Coutu challenged the British Columbian courts’ jurisdiction over them in the class action. Pro Doc and Jean Coutu were incorporated in Québec; they do not carry on business in British Columbia and do not have an office in that province. Pro Doc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Jean Coutu that distributes pharmaceuticals and generic drugs. Pro Doc purchased opioids from third party manufacturers and then resold them to Jean Coutu, which, in turn, supplied them to more than 400 franchised pharmacies in Québec, New Brunswick and Ontario.The B.C.S.C. dismissed the motions of Jean Coutu and Pro Doc seeking the action be dismissed or stayed on the ground it did not have jurisdiction over them. The B.C.C.A. unanimously upheld that decision. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent His Majesty the King in Right of the Province of British Columbia. Justice Jamal took no part in the judgment.”
Criminal Law: Homicide
Ahmadi v. R., 2025 ONCA 219 (41898)
After a long night of smoking marijuana and consuming magic mushrooms with several other young men, the Applicant assaulted a 75 year old woman he came across while walking on a trail. The victim never regained consciousness and eventually passed away from the injuries the Applicant inflicted on her. The Applicant was convicted of second degree murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the 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: Homicide
Whitstone v. R., 2024 SKCA 52 (41908)
The Applicant was the “queen” of a North Battleford gang. The Applicant and others suspected the victim, a member of a rival gang, of concealing information about the murder of the Applicant’s great-nephew. The victim was abducted and subjected to prolonged violence which resulted in her death. The Applicant was found guilty of the charges of unlawful confinement, first degree murder, improperly interfering with human remains and theft of a vehicle. The first degree murder appeal was dismissed. “The applicant’s motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The respondent’s motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Luring
Terwilligar v. R., 2025 ONCA 347 (41914)
Mr. Terwilligar communicated with an undercover officer posing first as the father of a 13-year old girl and then as the 13-year old girl. He discussed sexual activity. The police obtained and executed a warrant to search his residential address. They seized electronic devices and obtained evidence from searches of those devices. Mr. Terwilligar brought an application to exclude the evidence for breach of s. 8 of the Charter and a subsequent motion challenging the validity of the warrant. The trial judge dismissed both motions. Mr. Terwilligar was convicted for child luring, making child sexual exploitation and abuse material, and agreeing to commit sexual interference and sexual assault with a person believed to be under 16 years of age. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Employment Law: Settlements
Peng v. Services éducatifs La Préscolaire ltée, 2025 QCCA 323 (41854)
The Québec Administrative Labour Tribunal found a settlement agreement and transaction had been concluded between an employee and employer, and it dismissed the related proceedings. The tribunal did not accept the employee’s evidence she either did not agree to the settlement, or she had been forced to sign it. The tribunal dismissed the employee’s application for review or revocation of its decision. The Québec Superior Court dismissed the employee’s J.R., and the Qué. C.A. dismissed the employee’s application for leave to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Family Law: Property Division
Alami v. Haddad, 2025 ONCA 527 (41954)
Applicant Mounia Hassani Alami and Respondent Fadi Haddad were married. They divorced in 2018 and, several years later, proceeded to trial to address issues arising from their separation. The trial judge held Ms. Alami owned the former matrimonial home upon a 50% resulting trust for Mr. Haddad. The Ont. C.A. dismissed Ms. Alami’s appeal. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Labour Law: Psychological Harassment
Bélanger v. ArcelorMittal Mining Canada G.P., 2024 QCCA 1630 (41753)
The Applicant, Vincent Bélanger, was an employee of the Respondent company, ArcelorMittal Mining Canada G.P. He filed a claim with the Québec Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST), alleging he had been a victim of psychological harassment on the part of his immediate superior in July 2019. The CNESST denied that claim, a denial that it confirmed following an administrative review. The Administrative Labour Tribunal dismissed the Applicant’s contestation of the CNESST decision, and a motion for review or revocation was subsequently dismissed. The Applicant’s J.R. was dismissed by the Superior Court, and the Qué. C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time. “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.”
Real Property: Unjust Enrichment
Olivier v. De Blois, 2024 QCCA 1477 (41791)
The Respondent, Claire De Blois, was the owner of several buildings that were maintained and administered by the Applicant, Marc Olivier. However, in a dispute between the parties in 2020, Mr. Olivier claimed to be the true owner of the buildings under a verbal prête-nom agreement entered into with Ms. De Blois. In 2021, the Québec Superior Court rendered a judgment determining Ms. De Blois was the true owner of the buildings. Mr. Olivier did not appeal that judgment, but instead brought an action in unjust enrichment against Ms. De Blois, claiming $890,951.54, corresponding to the hours he spent maintaining and managing the buildings. Being of the view the unjust enrichment criteria had not been met, the Superior Court dismissed the action. Mr. Olivier appealed that judgment. The Qué. C.A. found Mr. Olivier was calling into question the Superior Court’s interpretation of the evidence as a whole, both in the 2020 dispute and in the action in unjust enrichment, and was in fact proposing the complete reopening of the debate, that is, a full and new analysis of the facts in the hope of obtaining other conclusions favourable to him. The Qué. C.A. pointed out that was not its role and dismissed the 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.”
Remanded
Criminal Law: DUI
R. v. Vigneault, 2024 QCCA 793 (41429)
On the basis of breathalyzer results, the Respondent was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood within the two hours after he ceased to operate a motor vehicle. At trial, a certificate of a qualified technician was filed as evidence of the breathalyzer results; the certificate included a statement that before the taking of each sample, the technician conducted a system calibration check the result of which was within 10% of the alcohol standard certified by the analyst. There was no mention in the certificate of the target value of the alcohol standard. The trial judge found the certificate of the qualified technician was sufficient to allow the Crown to benefit from the presumption of accuracy set out in s. 320.31. The Respondent was convicted. The Québec Superior Court allowed his summary conviction appeal, finding the target value of the alcohol standard must first be established by an analyst or by the filing of their certificate containing the information regarding the target value. In the absence of such certification by the analyst, the evidence from the technician constituted hearsay that was inadmissible in evidence. The Québec Superior Court ordered the Respondent be acquitted. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the Crown’s appeal, finding even if the certificate or the testimony of the analyst is necessary to report the target value of the alcohol standard, the certificate of the qualified technician in this case, which stated nothing about the target value, was insufficient to allow the Crown to benefit from the presumption of accuracy. “Pursuant to subsection 43 (1.1) of the Supreme Court Act, the case forming the basis of the application for leave to appeal…is remanded to the Court of Appeal of Quebec for disposition in accordance with R. v. Rousselle, 2025 SCC 35 and R. v. Larocque, 2025 SCC 36.”