Granted
Class Actions: Airlines; Federal Paramountcy
Consumers’ Union, et al. v. Air Canada, 2025 QCCA 480 (41866)
At the end of June 2010, an amendment to s. 224 of the Québec Consumer Protection Act, (“CPA”), came into force; it aimed to eliminate the business practice that consisted in advertising a good or service at a price that did not include the full amount the consumer had to pay at the time of payment. Two weeks after that amendment, the Applicant Michael Silas, represented by the Consumers’ Union (“Union”) and a person designated for the purposes of the class action, consulted Air Canada’s Internet site to acquire a ticket. Mr. Silas had to go through three navigation steps. Between the first and last step, the ticket price increased by $124.46 by the addition of taxes, fees, charges and other surcharges. The Applicants sought a reduction in the price paid and an award of punitive damages. Air Canada, for its part, argued the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy rendered that provision of the CPA constitutionally inapplicable. Alternatively, it argued it did not breach the Act. The Québec Superior Court excluded the application of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy. It refused to impose a reduction in price because the presumption of prejudice did not apply and because the prohibited practice was not capable of influencing the consumer’s behaviour. It also refused to award punitive damages against the Respondent, because the evidence showed it was not necessary in order to prevent a repetition of the conduct. The Qué. C.A. confirmed the Superior Court’s analysis regarding the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy. It concluded the trial judge committed a reviewable error concerning the presumption of prejudice but did not impose a reduction in price on the Respondent because there was no basis on which to quantify the reduction of the obligation to which the consumers were entitled. It awarded punitive damages because the Respondent demonstrated carelessness and serious negligence with respect to consumers. “The Attorney General of Quebec’s request to be recognized as a respondent to the application for leave to cross-appeal and to have his response considered as such is granted. The application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to cross-appeal…are granted with costs in the cause.”
Municipal Law: Bylaws
Westcan Recyclers Ltd., et al. v. City of Calgary, 2025 ABCA 67 (41752)
The Applicant 664078 Alberta Ltd. own a property along 68th St. SE in Calgary, and the Applicant Westcan Recyclers Ltd. (collectively “Westcan”) operated a scrap metal recycling facility on this property. Trucks and other vehicles access the property via two entrances on 68th St. A private developer was originally responsible for an industrial development farther south along 68th St. One of the conditions imposed upon the developer as part of the subdivision approval was the widening of 68th St. The developer experienced financial difficulties, and the Respondent, the City of Calgary, bought its interest in and assumed sole responsibility for the development in 2017. The City’s Real Estate and Development Services (“REDS”) business unit lead the project. In 2020, the City’s Development Approvals department approved REDS’ plan to expand 68th St. The plan required access to Westcan’s property from 68th St. be permanently closed and new access points to the property built from other adjacent streets. This required modifications to the property itself and to Westcan’s operations. Westcan objected to the plan, disputing the safety and adequacy of the new proposed access points, and filed a statement of claim against the City. Moreover, it sought and obtained an interim injunction to prevent the expansion of 68th St. In 2022, the City’s Development Approvals department approved REDS’ design for new access points to Westcan’s property from adjacent streets. Shortly thereafter, City council enacted a bylaw to close access to Westcan’s property from 68th St. pursuant to its power under s. 28(3) of the Highways Development and Protection Act. After enacting the bylaw, the City brought an application to vacate the injunction. In response, Westcan brought a cross-application J.R. of the bylaw, seeking to have it quashed. The chambers judge dismissed the City’s application and granted Westcan’s cross-application, thereby quashing the bylaw. The City appealed to the Alta. C.A., and the majority set aside the order quashing the bylaw and vacated the injunction. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
Dismissed
Civil Litigation: Abandoned Appeals
Ma, et al. v. Wu, 2025 BCCA 229 (41553)
Ms. Wu successfully brought an action against the Applicants seeking damages. Groberman J.A. ordered security for the trial costs in the amount of $125,340. Groberman J.A. ordered Ms. Wu could apply to dismiss the appeal as abandoned if Mr. Ma did not post security by August 23, 2024. On September 19, 2024, the B.C.C.A. dismissed Mr. Ma’s application to vary the order of Groberman J.A. On October 22, 2024, the appeal went on the inactive list for a second time. On April 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Mr. Ma’s application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2024 judgment of the B.C.C.A. Ms. Wu then sought an order dismissing the appeal as abandoned due to the failure of Mr. Ma to comply with an order to pay security for costs. The appeal was dismissed as abandoned. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the application to review the order of a justice dismissing the appeal as abandoned. “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/Property: Forcible Removal
Knight v. Minister of Public Safety, et al., 2025 BCCA 192 (41909)
The Applicant, Mr. Knight, resided in a converted school bus at a campground in Sechelt, British Columbia. Mr. Knight was forcibly removed from the premises in January 2017, during which there was an altercation with RCMP officers; Mr. Knight was arrested and charged with various offences, although the criminal proceedings were later stayed. In 2018, Mr. Knight initiated legal proceedings against various defendants, including the Respondent Minister of Public Safety, arguing (among other things) that his removal and his subsequent arrest by RCMP officers was unlawful. An application judge at the B.C.S.C. dismissed Mr. Knight’s application for relief. The B.C.C.A. unanimously dismissed Mr. Knight’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Vexatious Litigation
Walker v. Kierans, 2025 BCCA 232 (41902)
The Respondent, Margaret Kierans, brought an application before the B.C.S.C. to have the Applicant, Kathleen Walker, declared a vexatious litigant and to prevent her from commencing additional proceedings or actions. The chambers judge granted the requested relief; Ms. Walker was prohibited from initiating any further proceedings in either the B.C.S.C. or the B.C. Provincial Court without first seeking leave from the court in question. The chambers judge also dismissed Ms. Walker’s application seeking an adjournment of the vexatious litigant application hearing. A unanimous panel of the B.C.C.A. dismissed Ms. Walker’s appeals from both of the chambers judge’s orders (i.e., the dismissal of her request for an adjournment, and the vexatious litigant declaration). “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Alleged Counsel Ineffectiveness
Olynik v. R., 2025 SKCA 51 (41950)
Two people forcibly entered the basement apartment of a house and attacked and injured two occupants. Crown counsel relied on circumstantial evidence to prove Mr. Olynik’s identity as one of the assailants. A DNA report indicating blood found at the scene of the crime was not Mr. Olynik’s blood was not tendered into evidence. Mr. Olynik was convicted for multiple offences. On an appeal from the convictions, Mr. Olynik argued in part his trial counsel was ineffective. The Sask. 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.”
Employment Law: Covid Litigation
Otoman v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 CAF 88 (41879)
The Applicant, Mr. Otoman, was employed by a company as a deckhand for Traverse Rivière-du-Loup-Saint-Siméon. An interim order from the Department of Transport Canada required transportation sector employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Mr. Otoman refused to comply with that policy and stopped working. He applied for employment insurance benefits. His application was denied. He tried to have that decision reviewed. The Canada Employment Insurance Commission determined Mr. Otoman was not available to work because he was willing to accept work only as a deckhand, which limited his opportunities for obtaining employment. The administrative authorities denied Mr. Otoman benefits and found he had not proved his availability. The Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada dismissed his application for leave to appeal those denials. Mr. Otoman applied for J.R. with the Fed. Court. The Fed. Court dismissed the J.R.; Mr. Otoman had not demonstrated the Appeal Division’s decision was unreasonable according to the applicable standard of proof. The review of the record showed Mr. Otoman had not presented any evidence intended to demonstrate he made efforts to seek suitable employment. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeal. In its view, the Federal Court had correctly chosen reasonableness as the standard of review. Mr. Otoman’s opinion he would probably never manage to find suitable employment did not relieve him of his obligation to actively seek employment to establish his eligibility for employment insurance. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Insurance: Fidelity Bonds
SureFire Dividend Capture, LP v. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance), 2025 ONCA 332 (41880)
The Applicant, Surefire Dividend Capture, LP (“SDC”), lost investments it had made, or acquired, in Broad Reach Capital, LP (“BRC”), a hedge fund. Unknown to SDC when it decided to do business with BRC, BRC’s CEO was operating a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. SDC brought an action to recover these losses under a fidelity bond issued by the Respondent National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (“Berkshire”). In the lead up to the issuance of the fidelity bond, SDC had made it known to Berkshire it was seeking coverage for the risk of theft and fraud by sub-advisors including BRC. The trial judge concluded the fidelity bond was not worded to allow SDC to claim on the bases it asserted. The trial judge found BRC’s CEO was not SDC’s “employee” within the meaning of the fidelity bond, and dismissed the action. The Ont. C.A. dismissed SDC’s appeal. It determined in light of the trial judge’s findings, the pre-contractual communications showed Berkshire never indicated the coverage was on offer. The pre-contract communications did not assist SDC or demonstrate a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s interpretation of the fidelity bond. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Torts: Misfeasance in Public Office
Greengen Holdings Ltd. v. British Columbia, et al., 2025 BCCA 115 (41848)
This Leave challenges a finding of liability for misfeasance in public office. The trial judge found two B.C. government representatives unlawfully denied permit applications made in support of a proposed hydroelectric project. The judge awarded more than $10M in damages. The B.C.C.A. allowed the appeal, set aside the trial judgment and dismissed the civil claim. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Torts: Misfeasance in Public Office
6165347 Manitoba Inc., et al. v. City of Winnipeg, et al., 2025 MBCA 33 (41855)
These Leaves address the development of land located in Winnipeg. The Applicants, 6165347 Manitoba Inc. and 7138793 Manitoba Ltd., which carries on business as Gem Equities Inc. (Gem), are the developers of approximately forty seven acres of land commonly referred to as the Parker Lands. Two employees of the City were found liable for misfeasance in public office. The City was found vicariously liable for the acts of its employees; and the City, and employees were found jointly and severally liable to pay Gem compensatory and exemplary damages of $5M. The Man. C.A. allowed the appeal and dismissed the claims against Smith, Robinson and the City. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”