Granted
Criminal Law: State Agents
R. v. Pham, 2025 BCCA 324 (42101)
Packages shipped from a Loomis Express depot were found to contain methamphetamine. RCMP officers attended at the Loomis Express depot to inform the employees at the depot and to make inquiries. After the police spoke with Loomis employees, Mr. McGuire presented additional packages. They were processed by Loomis employees but set aside to be seized by the RCMP. Loomis employees made observations of the vehicles used by Mr. McGuire and the presence of another person. Police began surveillance. After another package was delivered, police stopped and arrested Mr. McGuire and Mr. Pham, conducted searches yielding evidence of drug and firearms offences. Mr. Pham raised multiple Charter challenges including a claim the Loomis Express employees were state agents and s. 8 of the Charter was engaged in respect of their conduct. The trial judge concluded they were not state agents. Mr. Pham was convicted on multiple counts of trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and firearms offences. The B.C.C.A. held the trial judge erred in his approach to determining whether a state agency relationship existed. It allowed an appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted. The schedule to serve and file appeal documents will be established by the Registrar.”
Mining/Aboriginal Law: Duty to Consult
British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner) v. Gitxaala Nation, et al., 2025 BCCA 430 (42200)
Two First Nations petitioned the B.C.S.C. seeking declaratory relief concerning a mineral tenure registration system that permitted registering claims to mineral rights on Crown land without prior consultation with affected First Nations. The applications judge declared the mineral claims registration system breached the Crown’s duty to consult, dismissed claims for other declaratory relief, and suspended the declaration for 18 months. The B.C.C.A. held the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act incorporated the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the law of British Columbia. A majority held the mineral claims registration system was inconsistent with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and the Crown had breached its duty to consult. Dickson J.A. dissenting held the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has not assigned any role to the courts and a question of inconsistency between British Columbia’s laws and the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not a justiciable matter. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the motion for leave to intervene is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is granted. The schedule for serving and filing the appeal documents will be set by the Registrar.”
Securities: Constitutionality of Summons
Ontario Securities Commission v. Binance Holdings Limited, 2025 ONCA 751 (42156)
Binance Holdings Limited operated an online trading platform for investments in the crypto assets market. The Ontario Securities Commission issued an order launching an investigation into its business and alleged violations of the Securities Act. An appointed investigator issued a summons under s. 13 of the Securities Act setting out a wide-ranging demand for production of documents. Binance Holdings Limited brought a motion before the Capital Markets Tribunal seeking an order revoking the investigation order and summons. The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to revoke the investigation order and summons. On J.R., the Divisional Court declined to judicially review Charter issues and otherwise affirmed the investigation order and summons. Binance Holdings Limited brought a collateral application before the Ontario Securities Commission. The Commission held it lacked jurisdiction to revoke or vary the summons. The Ont. C.A. joined appeals from the Divisional Court’s decision and the Ontario Security Commission’s decision. It held the summons was overbroad, in breach of s. 8 of the Charter, and unconstitutional. It set aside the summons without prejudice to investigator to issue a Charter-compliant summons. “The motion to strike filed by the respondent is granted. The letter included at Tab 4A of the application for leave to appeal from the Executive Director, Enforcement, of the Autorité des marchés financiers, and the sentence at paragraph 31 of the applicant’s Memorandum of Argument stating “Included in this application is a letter of support from the Autorité des marches financiers (AMF) expressing the AMF’s concern that the Court of Appeal’s approach to the relevance threshold would impede its ability to conduct effective and timely regulatory investigations,” are struck from the record for failure to comply with Rule 56(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause. The schedule for serving and filing the appeal documents will be set by the Registrar.”
Torts: Wrongful Prosecution
McCormack v. Evans, et al., 2025 ONCA 767 (42170)
Police uncovered evidence incriminating the Applicant in bribery and corruption offences and obtained an authorization to intercept Mr. McCormack’s communications. As a result of his incriminating utterances, he was charged with 22 criminal offences. The charges were never tried on their merits; some were stayed for delay and others withdrawn by the Crown. Mr. McCormack filed a civil suit against the Respondents, alleging wrongful prosecution, negligent investigation, and other civil torts. He maintained his innocence on the merits, arguing the police had no reasonable and probable grounds to bring charges against him. The Superior Court of Justice ruled the evidence of recordings of wiretap intercepts was admissible at trial. The wiretap authorization had not been set aside and benefits from a presumption of validity. There were reasonable and probable grounds for Mr. McCormack’s arrest and the charges against him. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeal and held the trial judge did not err in his analysis of the case. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted. The schedule to serve and file appeal documents will be established by the Registrar.”
Dismissed
Class Actions: Bread Price Fixing
David, et al. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., 2025 ONCA 830 (42198)
Ms. David and her co-plaintiffs began a class action against a number of defendants alleging producers and retailers in the packaged bread market had engaged in price fixing. On December 31, 2021, Morgan J. certified the class as against some parties in respect of the claims of direct and indirect purchasers of packaged bread, naming the Applicants herein as representative plaintiffs, but dismissed the certification motion against Maple Leaf Foods Inc. and others: 2021 ONSC 7331. He found nothing supported any cause of action against Maple Leaf. This order was appealed in relation to other defendants, but not in relation to Maple Leaf: David v. Loblaw. In 2024, the representative plaintiffs moved to amend the Certification Order to certify the action against Maple Leaf based on evidence and information said to be new. That evidence and information was set out in their Fourth Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim (an Agreed Statement of Facts made in relation to a guilty plea on charges under the Competition Act against Canada Bread, an information to obtain against Maple Leaf’s CEO, who had previously been Canada Bread’s CEO, and Maple Leaf’s annual reports) and a Fifth Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim (emails in which Canada Bread or Maple Leaf corresponded with other defendants involved in the claim, and which the representative plaintiffs received in November 2023), both of which asserted the same causes of action against Maple Leaf. The chambers judge dismissed the representative plaintiffs’ motion to amend or reconsider the certification of the action as against Maple Leaf, struck the Fourth and Fifth Fresh as Amended Statements of Claim as they related to Maple Leaf, and granted Maple Leaf’s motion to exclude the emails, the agreed statement of facts, the annual reports, and all other records sought to be admitted into evidence on the grounds it was all inadmissible. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the appeals, declining to make any order regarding the crossclaim and referring any issue concerning it or any other procedure by which Canada Bread sought to claim over against Maple Leaf to the Superior Court. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Harassment
Cusson v. R., 2025 QCCA 863 (42046)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of criminal harassment. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
Gagné v. R., 2025 QCCA 1045 (42059)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Judges: Discipline
Paré v. Conseil de la magistrature du Québec, et al., 2025 QCCA 840 (42007)
The Honourable Chantal Paré, a judge of the Municipal Court of Ville de Laval since 2015, applied for J.R. to challenge the legality of the findings and recommendation made in respect of her by a committee of inquiry of the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec, established following a complaint. During the hearing of the inquiry, arguments were made to determine whether Judge Paré’s words and conduct constituted one or more breaches of ss. 1 and 2 of the Code of ethics for municipal judges of Québec. The committee of inquiry found they instead constituted breaches of s. 8 of the Code and recommended a reprimand as sanction. The Québec Superior Court dismissed the J.R. of the committee’s report. The Superior Court found the applicable rules of procedural fairness had not been breached and the committee could render the decision it rendered because it fell within a range of possible outcomes in that matter in respect of the facts and law. The Qué. C.A. allowed the application for leave to appeal the Superior Court’s judgment but dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Professions: Discipline
Howe v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society, et al., 2025 NSCA 62 (41982)
In 2017, a disciplinary panel (the “Panel”) found the Applicant, a Black lawyer, had engaged in professional misconduct. It disbarred the Applicant and prohibited him from applying for re-admission to the bar for five years. The N.S. C.A. upheld the Panel’s decision on merits and sanction. At the hearing and on appeal, the Applicant argued the Panel’s investigation was racially motivated; these arguments were rejected and the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the S.C.C. dismissed. In September 2023, the Applicant, eligible to apply for readmission under the terms of the Panel’s disposition, instead applied to vary that disposition under the Legal Profession Act. He argued the 2021 acknowledgment from the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society of systemic racism, in addition to the treatment of white lawyers in subsequent disciplinary decisions resulted in a violation of his s. 15 Charter rights. The Panel held its jurisdiction to vary its own orders requires a material change in circumstances. In this case, the Applicant has not demonstrated such a change in circumstances. The subsequent cases involving white lawyers were distinguishable on their facts and the Applicant’s remaining arguments were restatements of ones made at his original hearing. The N.S. C.A.: dismissed the Applicant’s appeal, finding the Panel did not err in law; the procedure the Panel adopted was procedurally fair and there was no evidence to support a claim of racial bias; the Legal Profession Act grants the Panel discretionary jurisdiction to vary its own orders in the event of a material change in circumstances; the change in circumstances must be relevant to the objects of the legislation; there was no such change in this case. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society.”
Professions: Paramedics
Hogg v. Registration Appeal Committee, et al., 2025 NSCA 50 (42000)
The Registration Committee of the College of Paramedics of Nova Scotia denied Ms. Hogg’s application for registration and licensure as a paramedic. Ms. Hogg appealed to the Registration Appeal Committee. A dispute arose as to the nature of the appeal hearing and, by extension, the scope of the evidence permitted. The Registration Appeal Committee ultimately decided the appeal would proceed with a hearing de novo, permitting the parties to present new evidence. Ms. Hogg appealed this decision to the N.S. C.A. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Ms. Hogg filed a motion for an extension of time to file a J.R. The N.S.S.C. dismissed the application on the basis there was a significant concern the motion and related attempt to seek J.R. was premature. The N.S. C.A.: dismissed the appeal; the judge did not err in law in applying the prematurity principle and no patent injustice results from the decision; whether Ms. Hogg’s objections have merit awaits the Registration Appeal Committee’s process, which has not yet occurred. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs to the respondent, the College of Paramedics of Nova Scotia.”
Real Property: Broker Licences
Shelso v. Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec, et al., 2025 QCCA 666 (41967)
Éliza Rossi received a decision from the Licence Issue and Maintenance Committee (“LIMC”) of the Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec refusing to issue her a residential real estate broker’s licence. The LIMC found the criminal offences she committed in the past were related to brokerage activities. Ms. Rossi contested that decision before the Court of Québec, applying for the holding of a trial de novo in order to adduce evidence of good conduct and good character. The Court of Québec dismissed that application, finding the legislative scheme instead provides for a review on the record. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contestation had to be resolved from the evidence produced before the LIMC. Hans Shelso, an intervenor before the Qué. C.A. as a friend of the court and a real estate broker whose licence had been revoked, sought leave to be substituted as Applicant in order to appeal the decision to the Court. “The motion to add Hans Shelso as an applicant in respect of the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Universities: Disclosure
Poitras v. Université Laval, et al., 2025 QCCA 762 (41964)
The Applicant Mr. Poitras alleged he was subjected to harassment and received an unfair evaluation from his supervising physician during his medical studies and clinical internship at the Respondent university (the “institution”). He sought access to the entirety of his university record dating back to 2013, asserting these documents were necessary to support his action against the institution and 28 other defendants. The Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec granted Mr. Poitras’ requests for review in part and ordered the institution to disclose additional portions of the requested records within a specified timeframe. The Court of Québec allowed the institution’s appeal in part, set aside the decision of the Commission in part, ordered the matter be returned to the Commission, dismissed Mr. Poitras’ incidental appeal, and awarded costs in favour of the institution. Mr. Poitras sought to appeal this decision, but the Qué. C.A. dismissed his appeal for want of jurisdiction in accordance with section 154 of the Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”