Granted
Criminal Law: Homicide
R. v. Dussault, 2025 QCCA 1433 (42169)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of homicide. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the amended reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is granted. The schedule for serving and filing the appeal documents will be set by the Registrar. The Chief Justice took no part in the judgment.”
Dismissed
Administrative Law: Judicial Independence
Duquette v. Québec (Attorney General), 2025 QCCA 616 (41943)
The Applicant, a Régie de l’énergie (“Régie”) commissioner, was the subject of a professional conduct complaint in connection with the exercise of her functions. The complaint was rejected. Despite that favourable decision, the Applicant applied for a declaratory judgment and J.R., relying on s. 23 of the Québec Charter. She claimed the Régie’s commissioners exercise adjudicative functions and should therefore benefit from a high degree of judicial independence allowing them to ensure their functions are exercised independently of the state’s executive branch. According to the Applicant, the provisions of the Regulation respecting the ethics and professional conduct of public office holders, dealing with the disciplinary process applicable to commissioners as public office holders do not provide this guarantee of independence. The Québec Superior Court rendered a judgment in which it (1) allowed in part the Applicant’s application for a declaratory judgment and J.R.; (2) declared ss. 37 to 42 of the REPCP constitutionally inoperable against the Applicant and any other member of the Régie exercising adjudicative functions, because they infringe their judicial independence; and (3) quashed an inquiry report produced in the context of a disciplinary process arising under the REPCP. The Qué. C.A. allowed the Respondent’s appeal, set aside the trial judgment and dismissed the Applicant’s incidental appeal. It found even if the trial judge had been correct in concluding the Régie exercises quasi-judicial functions, the guarantee of independence in s. 23 of the Québec Charter applies and the Régie leans more toward the middle of the spectrum or, at least, toward a level higher than the lower level—which was not accepted—her finding on the constitutional inoperability of ss. 37 to 42 of the REPCP against the Applicant and the other commissioners of the Régie was erroneous. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Litigation: Pierringer Agreements
Ray, Kenworth Toronto Leasing Ltd., et al. v. Kalob Cadieux by his litigation guardian Lucie Saint-Phard, et al., 2025 ONCA 405 (41966)
Two boys who were passengers in the minivan driven by Patrick Cadieux were seriously injured when the van collided with a tractor-trailer driven by Scott Ray, an employee of United Petroleum Transport. Their combined damages exceeded $14M. They settled their claim against the City of Ottawa for negligent design of the intersection via a Pierringer agreement. The agreement set out the statement of claim would be amended so the non-settling defendants (Ray et al. and Patrick Cadieux) would remain jointly and severally liable for the damages they caused but they would not be able to make a crossclaim for contribution and indemnity against Ottawa. The agreement provided the trial judge could apportion liability. The Applicants (Ray, Kenworth and United Petroleum) opposed the motion to approve the settlement on the basis they were potentially the only defendants with the financial means to satisfy a judgment as neither they nor Cadieux had sufficient insurance to cover the anticipated damages award and it was unlikely he would be able to make up the difference. The settlement agreement was approved, and their subsequent appeal to the Ont. C.A. was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondents Kalob Cadieux, by his litigation guardian Lucie Saint-Phard, Lucie Saint-Phard personally, Jakin Cadieux by his litigation guardian Lucie Saint-Phard and City of Ottawa.”
Civil Litigation: Proprietary Estoppel; Unjust Enrichment
Metske, et al. v. Metske, et al. 2025 ONCA 418 (41971)
Owners of a multi-farm farming operation that included a dairy operation discussed succession with their son and his partner. The son and his partner purchased the dairy herd and took over management of the dairy operation while the owners continued to work the rest of the farm. The son and his partner did not then buy quota or the barn housing the dairy. Discussions of succession ended after the relationship became acrimonious and the son and his partner were unable to secure financing on terms that enabled them to purchase the business. The son and his partner left and had to sell their herd and to sell or abandon equipment. They brought an action claiming $1.3M for unjust enrichment. The trial judge awarded $405K based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment and $2K on a counterclaim. The Ont. C.A. held there was no proof of an assurance or representation upon which to apply the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. It set aside the award based on proprietary estoppel, reducing the damages awarded to the son and his partner to $33,700 based on unjust enrichment. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Contracts: Validity Declaration; Breach; Non-Competition
International Capital Management Inc., et al. v. Optimize Inc. o/a Optimize Wealth Management, 2025 ONCA 741 (42146)
John and Javier Sanchez founded the company International Capital Management Inc. (“ICM”) in 1996. The Respondent, Optimize Inc. (“Optimize”) was a wealth manager, investment fund manager, and portfolio manager. The Applicants decided to sell ICM to Optimize. ICM and Optimize entered into two agreements (the “Agreements”), whereby ICM sold its portfolio of clients to Optimize. The first was a referral agreement, and the second was a non-competition agreement. Pursuant to the Agreements, Optimize was obligated to pay monthly non-competition fees to ICM. Optimize also paid two referral fee installments as required under the contract. However, Optimize would be entitled to a refund of these fees in the event that more than 15% of the value of the assets transferred to Optimize under the Agreements was subsequently transferred away from Optimize to entities related or associated with ICM or the Sanchez brothers. Optimize claimed, as of August 2018, the Sanchez brothers began persuading their former clients who had transferred their portfolios to Optimize to move their business to TIP Wealth Manager Inc. (“TIP”), another wealth management firm associated with the Sanchez brothers. Optimize claimed over 15% of the value of the initial portfolios belonging to referred parties was transferred to TIP. Optimize subsequently sent a notice it was terminating the agreements, and demanded repayment of the fees paid to ICM, totalling $747,094.34. ICM then initiated an action for: (1) a declaration the Agreements were valid and binding on Optimize; (2) damages in the sum of $3M for breach of the non-competition agreement; and (3) damages in the sum of $600K for breach of the referral agreement. Optimize counterclaimed for the $747,094.34 of fees paid under the Agreements. On a motion for summary judgment brought by Optimize, the motion judge granted its counterclaim and dismissed the Applicants’ action. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Criminal Harassment; Arson; Revocation
Dubé v. R., 2025 QCCA 1135 (42201)
The Applicant Normand Dubé was on trial for criminal harassment and arson to residences and a motor vehicle, all committed on different dates. The only link between the victims and Mr. Dubé is each victim, in the performance of their duties as a public officer, at separate times and following different events, made or confirmed administrative decisions affecting the Applicant’s property rights. At trial, the judge convicted Mr. Dubé on a number of the counts against him and sentenced him to a global term of imprisonment of nine years. Mr. Dubé sought to appeal that conviction, but the Qué. C.A. granted motions for dismissal because he had not complied with his recognizance and had flouted its authority. The Crown also appealed the conviction so the seven-year sentence be served consecutively to another sentence, imposed a few months earlier. That appeal was allowed by the Qué. C.A. Four years later, Mr. Dubé sought to obtain a revocation of judgment. All applications were dismissed. The motion for revocation became moot, and there was no need to expend judicial resources on it. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Jury Charge re Identification
Deschambeau v. R., 2025 ABCA 344 (42150)
Mr. Deschambeau was convicted of second degree murder following a trial by jury. Mr. Boostrom was shot. Five people were present — Ms. Billy, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cardinal, Mr. Northwest and Mr. Boostrom — when two men arrived. The two men had a five to ten-minute conversation with Mr. Cardinal, Mr. Northwest and Mr. Boostrom. Mr. Boostrom was shot. The two men were identified as Mr. Deschambeau and Mr. Blood by Mr. Cardinal, who said he knew them. Mr. Northwest described the two men and said he saw the shorter of the two shoot Mr. Boostrom. Identification of the accused was a central issue on trial. Mr. Deschambeau appealed, alleging, in part, the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury on the frailties of identification evidence. The Alta. C.A. unanimously dismissed the appeal. The court held even though the charge to the jury was not the strong caution that has sometimes been required where there is a central question of identification, it was adequate and sufficient in the present case. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Mischief; Revocation
Dubé v. R., 2025 QCCA 1135 (42095)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of mischief and revocation motion. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Parole Ineligibility; Time Extensions; Jurisdiction
Bailey v. R., 2024 ABCA 375 (42062)
Mr. Bailey was convicted on three counts of second degree murder. He was sentenced to two life sentences with concurrent parole ineligibility for 15 years and a third life sentence with consecutive parole ineligibility for 15 years. The consecutive parole ineligibility was imposed pursuant to s. 745.51 in effect from 2011 until it was declared unconstitutional and struck down in R. v. Bissonnette, 2022 SCC 23. Mr. Bailey applied to the Alta. C.A. for an extension of time to appeal his sentence. The Alta. C.A. denied an extension of time. A majority additionally declared Mr. Bailey sought a remedy under ss. 12 and 24(1) of the Charter, he should seek it in the Court of King’s Bench. Wakeling J.A. preferred not to address seeking a remedy under ss. 12 and 24(1) of the Charter in the Court of King’s Bench. “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: Theft; Fraud
Daoulov v. R., 2025 QCCA 1410 (42232)
Anthony Daoulov owned a residence for independent seniors. A woman, the victim, lived there. Her rent was $1,050 per month; she made the payments by cheque. Over a period of 45 months, there were 11 months where more than one cheque equivalent to the rent of $1,050 was withdrawn from the victim’s bank account and deposited into one of the bank accounts for which Mr. Daoulov was signatory. According to the evidence, he forged the victim’s signature. At trial, the judge rejected Mr. Daoulov’s contradictory version. The judge was satisfied beyond a doubt he had forged or copied the victim’s signature, he had used forged cheques as if they were genuine and he had knowingly used the extra cheques issued to create confusion for the victim. It was a scheme voluntarily put in place to extract money from her. The judge sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be served in the community. On appeal, the Applicant sought leave to appeal the verdict and the sentence. He also sought to adduce new evidence. The Qué. C.A. did not see any reviewable error in the trial judge’s decisions. It also dismissed the application to adduce new evidence. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed. The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Real Property/Municipal Law: Easements
Armstrong, et al. v. District of North Saanich, et al., 2025 BCCA 277 (42033)
In 2018, Applicants Robert Douglas Armstrong and Margaret Jean Latham (“owners”) purchased a property which was subject to an easement. The easement was a burden on their title, as they owned the servient tenement. Their neighbours, Respondents James Grier and Mary Jean Alger (“neighbours”) benefited from the easement as owners of the dominant tenement. The easement ran, in part, over a steep slope. The neighbours constructed stairs on the easement without the owners’ permission or the necessary permits. The Respondent municipality, District of North Saanich, granted the permits retroactively. The owners sought to challenge the issuance of the permits by way of J.R. The neighbours sought a declaration the easement entitled them to build the staircase as a necessary ancillary right to the use and enjoyment of the easement. Both proceedings were heard together. The chambers judge dismissed the J.R. and issued a declaration the existence of the stairs on the easement was lawful as a necessary ancillary right for the use and enjoyment of the easement. The owners appealed both the easement and J.R. decisions and sought to adduce new evidence. The B.C.C.A. dismissed both appeals, as well as the application to adduce new evidence. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Torts: Railways
Québec (Attorney General), et al. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, et al., 2025 QCCA 230 (41783)
Following a derailment in Lac Mégantic of a train transporting crude oil, the Applicants brought proceedings against the Montréal, Maine & Atlantic Canada Company (“MMA”) and the Respondent, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (“CP”). The Québec Superior Court dismissed the proceedings brought against CP, since it was of the view CP could not be found legally liable and the actions of MMA and its employee had been the sole cause of the derailment. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the Applicants’ appeals. It held the trial judge had correctly stated the law as it stood regarding CP’s liability and had applied it correctly. Furthermore, contrary to what the Applicants claimed, the judge’s findings of fact were firmly anchored in the evidence and were free from any reviewable error. Finally, there was no error in the judge’s finding on causation. Thus, even on the assumption that CP’s conduct was wrongful, it still would not have been the cause of the derailment. “The motion to strike is dismissed and the amended reply of the applicants Guy Ouellet, Serge Jacques and Louis-Serges Parent is accepted for filing. The applications for leave to appeal…are dismissed with costs.”