Granted
Transportation Law: Railways
Canadian National Railway Company v. Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc., 2025 FCA 160 (42092)
There is a sealing order in this case, in the context of a review of a Canadian Transportation Agency decision re CN failing to meet service obligations owed to the Respondent. ‘The motion to expedite is dismissed without costs. The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
Dismissed
Appeals: Reactivating Appeal
Parikh v. R., 2024 ABCA (41836)
In 2017, Mr. Parikh was issued a traffic ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign. He pleaded guilty and then applied for leave to appeal to the Alta. C.A. Crown counsel consented to withdrawal of the plea to permit trial. Mr. Parikh abandoned the application for leave to appeal. Crown counsel withdrew the ticket before trial. In 2024, Mr. Parikh filed an application seeking to resurrect his application for leave to appeal. The Alta. C.A. dismissed the application. “The application for leave to appeal…is quashed.”
Appeals: Time Extensions
Parikh v. Red-L Distributors Ltd., 2020 ABCA 165 (39409)
Mr. Parikh settled a claim in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta against Red-L Distributors Ltd. for wrongful dismissal and discontinued the proceeding. He subsequently sought a trial date and to set aside the discontinuance. He applied for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. He also filed a Notice of Appeal from an interlocutory order in the wrongful dismissal proceedings that had required him to amend his Statement of Claim. A chambers judge of the Alta. C.A. denied an extension of time. The chambers judge denied leave to appeal from the denial of an extension of time. “The motion to join proceedings is dismissed. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Litigation/Charter: Covid Litigation
Qualizza, et al. v. Stewart, et al., 2025 FCA 93 (41907)
The action involves a mass tort claim brought on behalf of 330 current or former members of the Canadian Armed Forces (“CAF”). The defendants include Canada, the Chief of Defence Staff and eight other senior members of the defence staff, the former Minister of National Defence and the former Deputy Minister of National Defence. In 2021, the COVID-19 vaccination requirements for CAF members were set out in a series of directives. Together, the directives mandated all members of the CAF be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Exemptions were articulated for individual CAF members on the grounds of certified medical contraindications, religious grounds, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination, as specified by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Failure to comply with the directives could result in CAF members facing administrative and remedial measures, including release from the CAF. The plaintiffs alleged the vaccination requirement under the directives infringed ss. 2(a), 2(d), 7, 8 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The plaintiffs sought damages of $1M for each plaintiff, $350K for failure to comply with various statutes, regulations and administrative policies, as well as unspecified special damages. The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ statement of claim without leave to amend. The motion judge granted the motion as she was satisfied the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs’ motion before the Fed. Court for an extension of time to file an appeal was dismissed. Ms. Christensen, counsel for the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Fed. C.A. naming numerous appellants, including Mark Lolacher. Ms. Christensen later filed a notice of discontinuance indicating Mr. Lolacher and a subset of other named appellants were discontinuing their appeal. Mr. Lolacher brought a motion to set aside a partial notice of discontinuance. Mr. Lolacher argued he never authorized the discontinuance of his appeal. The Fed. C.A. granted the motion to set aside the partial notice of discontinuance. Mr. Lolacher was determined to be an appellant in the appeal and Ms. Christensen remained his counsel of record. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Litigation: Dismissal for Delay
Enviro-Gun Ltd., et al. v. Rural Municipality of Sherwood No. 159, 2025 SKCA 47 (41919)
In 2010, Applicants Enviro-Gun Ltd., Special Recycling Control Corporation, 101053945 Saskatchewan Ltd. and Clint Kimery commenced an action against the Respondent Rural Municipality of Sherwood No. 159 in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan. In 2022, the municipality applied to dismiss the action for delay. The municipality’s application was granted. An appeal to the Sask. C.A. was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Litigation: Motions to Strike
Botosh v. Soric, 2025 ONCA 256 (41846)
The Applicant, Ms. Botosh, sustained a slip and fall injury in 2003 and recovered damages before an Ontario court in 2013. Then, in 2023, she sued the defence team which opposed her slip and fall action, alleging various wrongs committed over the course of the litigation. Three groups of defendants (Respondents before this court) — consisting of defence counsel, an expert witness, and a surveillance company — all moved to strike her 2023 pleadings without leave to amend. The motion judge granted the Respondents’ motions. He found the 2023 pleadings constituted a collateral attack of the 2013 judgment and determined the action amounted to an abuse of process. He also concluded the pleadings disclosed no reasonable chance of success. The Ont. C.A. saw no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s decision and dismissed Ms. Botosh’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Assault
Khan v. R., 2021 ONCJ (41894)
The Applicant was charged with assault with a weapon contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code. His matter proceeded summarily at the Ontario Court of Justice between March and November 2020 and he was sentenced in March 2021 to 21 days in jail and 18 months of probation. Mr. Khan seeks leave to appeal his conviction, but no judgment of the Ont. C.A. has been rendered on this matter. “The application for leave to appeal…is quashed pursuant to s. 44 of the Supreme Court Act.”
Criminal Law: Criminal Harassment
Burry v. R., 2025 NLCA 23 (41968)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of criminal harassment and breach of probation. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Criminal Harassment
Patron v. R., 2024 SKCA 91 (41944)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of criminal harassment. “The motion for an extension of time filed on December 9, 2025 is dismissed. The motion for a stay of proceedings is dismissed. The Notice of Reference is struck from the application for leave to appeal. The motion for extensions of time to serve and file the applications for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: DUI
Porat v. R., 2025 SKCA (41977)
On an agreed statement of facts, Mr. Porat was tried in Provincial Court of Saskatchewan for having a blood concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance. Crown counsel gave notice seven days before trial of intent to rely on a Certificate of Analyst. Defence counsel submitted a minimum of sixty one days of notice was required. The Provincial Court of Saskatchewan held seven days of notice was sufficient. Mr. Porat was convicted. The Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan dismissed a summary conviction appeal. The Sask. C.A. denied leave to appeal. “The motion to extend the time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Intoxication
Necan v. R., 2024 ONCA 751 (41958)
Mr. Necan violently beat a man to death and was tried before a jury on a charge of second degree murder. The only issue at trial was whether his extreme intoxication at the time of the offence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the Crown proved intention for murder. At a pre-charge conference, defence counsel requested the charge in part state Mr. Necan is a First Nations man when directing on bias, prejudice or partiality. The instruction on judging the evidence without bias, prejudice or partiality did not state that Necan is a First Nations man. The jury found Mr. Necan guilty of second degree murder. The Ont. C.A. dismissed an appeal from the conviction. In part it dismissed the argument the jury charge on bias and prejudice did not adequately address the potential influence of harmful stereotypical assumptions about Indigenous people and alcohol, specifically a “firewater myth” that Indigenous people are constitutionally incapable of moderation when it comes to alcohol and once intoxicated become inordinately violent. “The motion to extend the time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
R.K. v. R., 2025 ABCA 197 (41896)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Interference; Sentencing
R. v. S.N.L., 2025 MBCA 65 (42021)
S.N.L. pleaded guilty to sexual interference against a 7 year-old girl, failing to appear on the initial sentencing date, and breaching a condition of a release order. The sentencing judge imposed a ten-year sentence for the sexual interference offence and two consecutive sentences of three months for the other offences. A majority of the Man. C.A. allowed an appeal from the sentence for sexual interference and substituted an eight year sentence. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Strip Searches
Cromwell v. R., 2025 NSCA 37 (41953)
The Applicant was involved in a road rage incident in which he is alleged to have pointed a handgun at another motorist and threatened them. The other motorist called the police who located the Applicant and arrested him. An incidental search of his vehicle produced a loaded 9mm handgun. Two police officers conducted a pat-down search of the Applicant; neither searched produced any evidence. While seated in the back of a police vehicle at the scene, a third police officer in the driver’s seat heard the sound of plastic rustling in the back seat. The Applicant was taken to the police station, where his person was searched a third time. This search produced no evidence. The Applicant was taken to another room, where he was strip-searched in the presence of four police officers with the door open. This search located 25.5 grams of cocaine on the Applicant’s person. The Applicant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and with various firearms and violent offences in relation to the road rage incident. At trial, the Applicant alleged the strip search violated his s. 8 Charter rights and sought a stay of proceedings. The trial judge found the police lacked the necessary grounds to conduct a strip search in the circumstances of the case, and the search itself was conducted unreasonably. He further held the conduct of the police prejudiced the integrity of the justice system and the only remedy capable of redressing the prejudice was a stay of proceedings on all of the charges, which he imposed. The N.S. C.A. agreed with the trial judge’s characterization of the breach of the Applicant’s rights, but held he failed to note the temporal and contextual distinction between the lawful investigation of the non-drug offences and the unlawful investigation of the drug offence. It further held the trial judge failed to consider the appropriateness of other, less extreme remedies. This led to an overemphasis on the harm done to the Applicant, at the expense of other factors that trial judges must consider when imposing a Charter remedy. The appeal was allowed in relation to the non-drug offences, and the case was remitted for a new trial before a different judge. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Parental Authority
C.B. v. B.B., 2025 MBCA 81 (42106)
There is a publication ban on the party, in the context of parental authority. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Real Property: Foreclosure
Williams v. ATB Financial, 2025 ABCA 207 (41916)
The Applicant and his brother jointly owned a residence. The Respondent was their mortgagee. In 2020, the Applicant’s brother became insolvent and the mortgage went into default. The Respondent eventually commenced default proceedings. The Applicant, represented by counsel, consented to a foreclosure order. An applications judge granted that order on December 21, 2021 and the Applicant discharged his counsel. The Applicant intended to redeem the mortgage through refinancing, but he was not satisfied with the terms the Respondent offered. He alleged the Respondent had induced him to consent to the foreclosure order by fraudulent misrepresentation and appealed the consent order. The appeal was first dismissed by the Court of King’s Bench, and then, on May 11, 2022, the Alta. C.A. denied the Applicant permission to appeal, finding the allegation of fraud was unsupported by the record. The Applicant then pursued a fresh action against the Respondent, alleging a range of misconduct in relation to the foreclosure order, including abuse of process, engaging in an unconscionable transaction, and fraudulent misrepresentation. He sought damages and return of the property. The Respondent applied to an applications judge for summary dismissal of the action. The applications judge held the Applicant’s action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral attack, since it seeks to revisit issues that were raised, or ought to have been raised, in the foreclosure action. The action was summarily dismissed. The Court of King’s Bench and Alta. C.A. found no error in the application judge’s reasoning and dismissed the Applicant’s appeals for substantially the same reasons. “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.”
Real Property: Partnership v. Tenants in Common
The parties owned a commercial property together in Toronto. The Applicants wished to buy out the Respondents, through the mechanism of the Partnerships Act. The Respondents counter-claimed for a sale of the property under the Partition Act. The parties brought competing motions for summary judgment. The motion judge rejected the claim the parties owned the property as a partnership, and found the parties were co-owners as tenants in common only. The motion judge found for the Respondents and granted them the unilateral right to sell the commercial property at its highest market value, dispensing with the need to secure the Applicants’ consent to the sale, for a period of 90 days, failing which the parties could ask the court for an extension or to resolve any impediments to sale. The Ont. C.A. allowed the Applicants’ appeal in part; while it upheld the finding there was no partnership in this case, it found the motion judge had erred in dispensing with the Applicants’ consent to the sale of the property. The Ont. C.A. instead directed a reference for sale of the property to an associate judge of the Superior Court, who could make any necessary directions to determine the procedure for the sale; furthermore, any of the parties were allowed to make an offer to purchase the property. “The application for leave to appeal… is dismissed with costs.”
Tax: Charitable Donation Tax Credits
Walby, et al. v. R., 2025 FCA 94 (41929)
The Applicants participated in the Global Learning Gifting Initiative program (the “GLGI Program”). Each Applicant received two receipts — one for the cash they paid and a second receipt for an alleged donation of educational courseware licences (the “Licences”). They claimed charitable donation tax credits under the Income Tax Act based on both the cash paid and the transfer of the Licences. The Applicants were reassessed by the Minister of National Revenue to deny these tax credits. The issue before the Tax Court was whether the Applicants should be allowed to claim charitable donation tax credits based on their cash payments. The Tax Court dismissed their appeals from the reassessments. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeals. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Torts: Medmal
Woldemariam v. Reid, 2025 BCCA 172 (41891)
The Applicant, Elias Woldemariam, sought medical treatment for his right foot, which suffered from swelling, blisters and ulcers. He was referred to the Respondent, Dr. John David Struan Reid, to investigate the possibility of peripheral vascular disease. Mr. Woldemariam’s situation quickly deteriorated, and he developed symptoms of sepsis. Consequently, Dr. Reid amputated Mr. Woldemariam’s right leg below the knee. Mr. Woldemariam sued Dr. Reid, alleging he provided negligent care that led to his foot becoming infected and requiring amputation. Dr. Reid brought a summary trial application: he sought to have Mr. Woldemariam’s claim dismissed, contending it was bound to fail because Mr. Woldemariam had failed to adduce expert evidence. Shortly before the hearing of Dr. Reid’s application, Mr. Woldemariam brought a cross-application seeking leave to amend his statement of claim to add new allegations which could succeed without expert evidence. The new allegations claimed Dr. Reid was negligent in failing to inform Mr. Woldemariam prior to the date of the operation that an amputation of at least part of his leg was inevitable and Dr. Reid committed battery, as Mr. Woldemariam had consented only to the amputation of a toe. The application judge granted judgment in Dr. Reid’s favour in the summary trial application, thereby dismissing Mr. Woldemariam’s claim, and dismissed Mr. Woldemariam’s cross-application to amend his statement of claim. Mr. Woldemariam appealed the decision regarding Dr. Reid’s summary trial application, arguing the judge erred in concluding his claim could not succeed without expert evidence; Mr. Woldemariam contended his statement of claim included the allegation Dr. Reid failed to inform him of a possible amputation and that expert evidence is not required for such a claim. The B.C.C.A. dismissed the appeal: it rejected Mr. Woldemariam’s argument the new allegation Dr. Reid failed to inform him of a possible amputation falls within the ambit of his original claim. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Universities: Students
Bouchelaghem v. Université Laval, et al., 2025 QCCA 144 (41770)
The Applicant was dismissed from the Faculty of Medicine, the dismissal confirmed by the university’s appeal committee. The Applicant applied to the Qué. C.A. for permission to appeal a Qué. Superior Court judgment dismissing the “Demande d’evaluation”; application for contractual and extra-contractual civil liability (claim for damages for breach of contract, violation of student rights, falsification of documents, abusive evaluation, violation of academic regulations and evaluation standards). “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”