Dismissed
Civil Litigation: Amending Pleadings
6517633 Canada Ltd. v. Gibson Creek Farms Ltd., et al., 2025 SKCA (41834)
The Applicant corporation owned farmlands in Saskatchewan. It leased those lands to the Respondents for the 2020 and 2021 crop years. At some point during the lease term, a dispute arose between the parties about the management of the lands. The Applicant commenced two proceedings against the Respondents: an application claiming a right to enter the lands, and the case at bar, an action for damages. In November 2021, the Applicant sought leave to amend its statement of claim in the action for damages to include new allegations, set out in a proposed amended statement of claim. The Respondents consented to some amendments, but opposed others. The application judge allowed the application in part. Proposed amendments relating to the parties’ conduct pursuant to court orders in the application to enter the lands were refused. Amendments directly relevant to a claim for damages were permitted. The Sask. C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, holding the application judge’s assessment of the proposed amendments was correct. “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 in accordance with the Tariff of fees and disbursements set out in Schedule B of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Hoang v. Mann Engineering Ltd., et al., 2025 ONCA (41890) The Respondents sought an order to have the Applicant’s action dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. A judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the Respondents’ request and dismissed the Applicant’s action; the Applicant was also prohibited from commencing any other claims, applications or other judicial proceedings against the Respondents. A panel at the Ont. C.A. unanimously dismissed the Applicant’s appeal from the first judge’s order; the same panel then dismissed the Applicant’s motion to set aside or reconsider its earlier decision. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Corporations: Mareva Injunctions
Entreprises Bertrand Roberge ltée, et al. v. Giroux, et al., 2024 QCCA 928 (41378) The Applicants, Entreprises Bertrand Roberge Ltée and others, claimed an amount of $168M from the Respondents, Robert Giroux and others, in repayment of losses incurred. To ensure the execution of a potential judgment, the Applicants sought conclusions in the nature of a Mareva injunction. The Québec Superior Court allowed the application for a Mareva safeguard order and declared the order valid for six months. It ordered the Respondents not, directly or indirectly, sell, withdraw, dissipate, transfer, alienate, gift, hypothecate or otherwise dispose of the assets they hold personally and/or indirectly through another person or entity and/or jointly with another or others, regardless of where those assets are located. The Qué. C.A. found absent proof of a reasonable and objective fear of dissipation of assets, given the breaches of procedural fairness and the deficiencies identified in the reasons of the trial judge, the appeal should be allowed and the Mareva order as well as all ancillary orders made should be set aside. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Child Luring
D. v. R., 2025 ONCA 392 (41961) There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of child luring. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Patents: Ownership
Canadian Energy Services L.P., et al. v. Secure Energy (Drilling Services) Inc., 2025 FCA 76 (41837) When drilling for oil in formations containing heavy crude oil or bitumen-rich oil sands, the bitumen or heavy oil sticks to the drilling components, requiring frequent cleaning. In 2002, Mr. Ewanek joined a predecessor to Secure Energy (Drilling Services) Inc. Soon after Mr. Ewanek was hired, Mr. Levey was hired to develop solutions to prevent the accretion problem. He developed a positively charged (cationic) polymer to stop the accretion of bitumen which was patented. He also tested several anionic polymers and a single non-ionic polymer, recording the test of the non-ionic polymer as “failed”. In 2005, Mr. Ewanek and Mr. Levey resigned. Mr. Levey began working for a predecessor to Canadian Energy Services L.P. (“CES”). It filed the application for a negatively-charged (anionic) water-based and an electrically-neutral (non-ionic) polymeric drilling fluids to reduce the accretion of bitumen or heavy oil to drilling components during the drilling process. Canadian Patent 2,624,834 (“Patent ’834”) was granted for that invention. In 2018, CES launched an action against Secure for infringement of Patent ’834 in the Alberta courts. In the federal courts, Secure sought a declaration Mr. Levey was the true inventor or co-inventor of the subject matter of Patent ’834 and an order requiring variation of the records of the Patent Office to reflect the true ownership. Secure’s application was stayed until the Alberta action was decided. The Alberta court found Secure’s causes of action barred by either limitations or a release, and Secure’s appeal was dismissed. The Fed. Court granted the application in part, declaring Mr. Levey to be the sole true and proper inventor of the subject matter of the Patent ’834, and Secure to be the true owner of that invention. There was no need to direct the Commissioner of Patents to correct the Register. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeal, holding the Fed. Court had erred in law with respect to chain of title, but the error did not affect the outcome. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Oral Hearing Ordered
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
B. v. R., 2025 ABCA 270 (42030) judgment rendered Jan. 26, 2026.
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of alleged non-condom sexual assault. “The request for an oral hearing of the application for leave to appeal…is granted pursuant to s. 43(1.2) of the Supreme Court Act. The hearing date will be fixed by the Registrar.”