Dismissed
Criminal Law: Private Complaints
Roy v. Bélanger, et al., 2024 QCCA 1667 (41835)
The Applicant undertook steps to file a private complaint. A few weeks later, he received a letter, by mail, from the Court of Québec informing him the filing of his information had been refused because the claims of criminal offences were not supported by the reported facts. The Superior Court judge was of the opinion that s. 504 of the Criminal Code was not complied with; he allowed the application and referred the case back to the Court of Québec for resumption of the analysis process. After the filing of a stay of proceedings by the Attorney General of Québec with respect to the private complaint, the Applicant brought matters before the Superior Court out of time. The Superior Court dismissed the appeal. The Applicant pursued matters with the Qué. C.A., still out of time, and his recourses were dismissed. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Defamation: Damages
Glacier Media Inc., et al. v. Pineau, 2025 BCCA 101 (41832)
This Leave originates in a summary trial application arising from a claim for defamation resulting from two articles. The Respondent, Mr. Pineau sued the publishers and authors of the articles separately. The present case concerns Mr. Pineau’s claim arising out of the first article, which was tried second. The Applicants, Glacier Media Inc. and Tyler Orton admit to the publication of the article. They also admit the article refers to Mr. Pineau and is defamatory of him. The only issue for determination was the quantum of damages payable. The B.C.S.C. ordered Glacier Media Inc. and Tyler Orton to pay $72K in general damages, $180K in special damages and no award for aggravated or punitive damages. The B.C.C.A. allowed the appeal and cross-appeal only to the extent of setting aside the trial judge’s award of special damages in the amount of $180K and substituted an award of special damages in the amount of $330K, reduced for mitigation pursuant to s. 11 of the Libel and Slander Act. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed. The application for leave to cross-appeal is dismissed.”
Pharmacists: Drug Company Commissions
Pinel, et al. v. Pharmacie Jean-Philippe Robert, Pharmacien inc., 2025 QCCA 526 (41885)
The parties had a business relationship from 2008 to 2019. The Applicants operated the commercial part of a pharmacy, and the Respondent responsible for the dispensary. During that period, the Applicants allocated to themselves income from commissions, paid by drug companies, for the sale of generic drugs. However, that practice is prohibited by the Québec Code of ethics of pharmacists. The Respondent brought an action for those amounts to be returned. At trial, the judge ordered the Applicants to pay the amount calculated for the 2017 fiscal year only. She refused to do so for the other years because the accuracy of the amounts had not been demonstrated. The Qué. C.A. set aside in part that decision by ordering the Applicants to pay the amounts received for those other years; it was of the opinion that it is the Applicants who should suffer the consequences of the absence of evidence, accounting or other, concerning the quantum. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Prisons: Reclassifications
Lill v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 CAF 80 (41922)
The Applicant, Mr. Lill, was serving a life sentence after being convicted in 2007 of first degree murder. He was detained in a minimum security institution. In 2020, he lost eligibility for the escorted temporary absence program. He became less cooperative, and was transferred to a medium security institution. Mr. Lill challenged the involuntary transfer and the security reclassification. He filed habeas corpus applications with the Québec Superior Court and took administrative steps for corrections to be made to the report that led to his transfer. In the face of denials, Mr. Lill filed grievances with Correctional Service Canada. The Assistant Commissioner rejected most of Mr. Lill’s arguments. Mr. Lill filed J.R. of that decision. The Fed. Court applied the standard of reasonableness and dismissed the J.R. It noted a breach of procedure by the Assistant Commissioner. However, since these measures were challenged through a habeas corpus application in other proceedings, redetermination of the grievance would serve no practical purpose. The Fed. C.A. was not satisfied the Fed. Court had committed a palpable and overriding error or an extricable error of law warranting its intervention. “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: Mortgages/Hypothecs
Ulysse v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2025 QCCA 686 (41903)
The Respondent, the Bank of Nova Scotia, granted a mortgage loan to the Applicant, Pierre Joseph Ulysse. On two occasions, Mr. Ulysse was in default. The Bank filed a first application for forced surrender in 2019, then again in 2021. The first application was settled in February 2020 through a transaction by which Mr. Ulysse paid the instalments then due. With respect to the second application, Mr. Ulysse opposed it. He argued the payment made in February 2020 extinguished not only the whole debt but also the mortgage. He argued the second application for forced surrender was unfounded. The Bank also filed an application for Mr. Ulysse to be declared an abusive, vexatious and quarrelsome litigant. The Québec Superior Court allowed the application for forced surrender in part, extended the time to vacate the building from 5 to 30 days, and declared Mr. Ulysse an abusive, vexatious and quarrelsome litigant, while limiting the conclusions sought by the Bank. Mr. Ulysse brought an appeal, which the Qué. C.A. dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”