Banking: Closing Accounts
Bishay v. Bank of Montreal, 2025 ONCA 743 (42140)
Applicant Samer Bishay was a former customer of the Respondent Bank of Montreal. In 2024, the Bank notified it would be terminating their banking relationship and all of his accounts would be closed as of a specified date. Mr. Bishay brought an application seeking an order to compel the Bank to reinstate certain of his accounts. The application was dismissed. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Homicide
Roebuck v. R., 2024 ABCA 143 (42052)
The Applicant Michael Roebuck was convicted of first degree murder in relation to the shooting death of a neighbour. Mr. Roebuck brought an appeal, seeking a new trial or a substituted verdict of second degree murder. The Alta. 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: Sexual Offences Sentencing
Sewell v. R., 2025 BCCA 348 (42063)
Mr. Sewell pled guilty to one count of sexual assault and two counts of voyeurism involving his wife’s sister in 2007, who was living with them. He had drugged her drink, rendering her incapacitated, then sexually assaulted her and took pictures of her naked body. At other times, he took pictures of her through her bedroom window. She did not have a clear memory of the assault, but remembered waking up to Mr. Sewell removing her shorts and underwear. The sexual assault resulted in a fracture of the victim’s family and other significant harms. Mr. Sewell sent the victim periodic emails. She did not respond for a long time but, in 2021, with the assistance of police, she met with Mr. Sewell. He answered her questions, disclosing the details of the sexual assault and acts of voyeurism. In April 2022, the Crown charged Mr. Sewell with sexual assault (count 1), administering a stupefying drug with intent to enable him to commit the sexual assault (count 2), voyeurism (pictures taken during the sexual assault) (count 3), and voyeurism (pictures taken through the bedroom window) (count 4). Early on, he instructed his counsel he would plead guilty to counts 1, 3 and 4 and he did so. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent conditional sentences of two years less a day on one count of sexual assault, six months and three months on two counts of voyeurism, plus victim surcharges and other conditions. The B.C.C.A. granted the Crown leave to appeal the sentence. It granted the appeal, set the conditional sentence order aside and replaced it with custodial sentences on three counts, to be served consecutively. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Employment Law: Permanent Employment for Life
Gloutnay v. ComediHa! 24 inc. (formerly known as Gestion Juste Pour Rire Inc.), et al., 2024 QCCA 156 (41384)
The Applicant, André Gloutnay, brought a proceeding against Gilbert Rozon, Gestion Juste Pour Rire Inc. and other legal persons related to the group after his employment was terminated. He considered himself to benefit from a guarantee of employment for life because of an agreement signed in April 2004 whereby Mr. Rozon promised he would, through his companies, provide him with permanent employment for life. Mr. Gloutnay sought his reinstatement, payment for lost wages and damages. The Qué. Superior Court found Mr. Gloutnay benefitted from a contract for life with Gestion Juste Pour Rire Inc. It therefore ordered Gestion Juste Pour Rire Inc. to reinstate Mr. Gloutnay in his former job. The judge found, among other things, the intuitu personae nature of the contract of employment that is sometimes invoked against a reinstatement did not play a role in this case because the employer clearly had no hostility toward Mr. Gloutnay. The Qué. C.A. allowed Gestion Juste Pour Rire Inc.’s appeal in part and struck the conclusions pertaining to the reinstatement order and instead ordered Gestion Juste Pour Rire Inc. to pay Mr. Gloutnay an indemnity of $666,500. Unlike the Qué. Superior Court, the Qué. C.A. was of the opinion the intuitu personae nature of Mr. Gloutnay’s contract of employment precluded his reinstatement. “The motion for addition, substitution and removal of parties is granted in part. Groupe Juste pour rire Inc. and Juste pour rire Management & Services Conseils Inc. are removed as interveners, but Former Gestion Inc. (formerly known as Gestion Juste pour rire Inc.) is kept as respondent. It is not necessary to substitute ComediHa! 24 inc. for Gestion Juste pour rire Inc. as respondent to enable the Court to decide on the application for leave to appeal. It is not necessary to consider the motion de bene esse to adduce fresh evidence and to extend the time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal. The motion for leave to add Groupe Juste pour Divertir inc. as a respondent is dismissed. The motion for directions is moot. The motion for leave to withdraw ComediaHa! as a respondent is dismissed. The motion to expedite the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The motion by the proposed respondent, ComediHa! 24 inc., for an extension of time to serve and file the responses is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs”