Granted

H.D v. British Columbia (Ministry of Children and Family Development), 2025 BCCA 457 (42219)
The Applicant, H.D., suffered a deliberately inflicted brain injury at the age of six weeks while in the care of her family. She has lived in foster care since. Due to her injury, H.D. is severely disabled and will require lifelong 24-hour supervision. Having now reached the age of majority, she will be forced to transition out of foster care and will be eligible for benefits provided by Community Living British Columbia (“CLBC”). In an action initiated by the Public Guardian and Trustee on behalf of H.D., the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Provincial Director of Child Welfare admitted liability for failing to intervene earlier to protect H.D. The parties agreed on most heads of damages and proceeded to trial on two issues: (1) whether the award for the cost of future care must account for the CLBC benefits available to H.D.; and (2) the appropriate model for 24-hour care and its cost. The trial judge awarded H.D. a lump sum for her future 24-hour care needs. With respect to the first question, the trial judge did not deduct CLBC benefits from the lump-sum damages award, but ordered the Public Guardian and Trustee be forbidden from claiming on behalf of H.D. any provincially funded benefits already covered by that award. With respect to the second question, the trial judge denied a claim by H.D. for increased nighttime care after 30 years. The Province appealed the trial judge’s decision regarding the first issue, while H.D. cross-appealed his decision regarding the second issue. The B.C.C.A. allowed the Province’s appeal, holding the CLBC benefits should be deducted from H.D.’s damages, and dismissed H.D.’s cross-appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”

Dismissed

Arbitration: Bias

Dhaliwal et al. v. Richter International Ltd., et al., 2025 ONCA 522 (41997)
The parties were involved in a commercial dispute, which they attempted to resolve through arbitration. During the arbitration process, the Applicants alleged the arbitrator’s participation in another arbitration proceeding involving the Respondents’ counsel ought to have been disclosed by the arbitrator, and his failure to do so gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The arbitrator dismissed the Applicants’ motion to challenge for bias. The Applicants then brought an application in Ont. Superior Court, seeking to challenge the arbitrator’s authority, alleging reasonable apprehension of bias and actual bias. An application judge at the Ont. Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the Applicants’ bias motion was time-barred, and concluded there was no reasonable apprehension of bias nor any actual bias. The Ont. C.A. unanimously upheld this decision. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Contracts/Municipal Law: Contract Issues

Services Ricova inc. v. City of Montreal, 2025 QCCA 901 (42017)
Ville de Montréal (“City”) issued a public call for tenders for the collection and transportation of recyclable materials. A few days later, it realized it had included erroneous data. It quickly corrected its error by publishing an addendum. Services Ricova inc. (“Ricova”) submitted a tender without having taken notice of the data corrected by the addendum. It was awarded the contract. Shortly after the start of its delivery of services, Ricova discovered its error. Suffering substantial monthly losses, it informed the City of its inability to abide by the contract. The City called upon workers to make sure the recyclable materials that Ricova was unable to deal with were collected. A few months later, it awarded a temporary contract by mutual agreement with another company. It resiliated the contract with Ricova nearly eight months later. The City claimed amounts related to, in particular, the costs associated with the intervention of the workers and the monetary difference between Ricova’s tender and the contract resulting from the new call for tenders. Ricova sought the resiliation of the contract, alleging the City breached its obligation of good faith. It also challenged the legitimacy of the amounts it had to pay. The Qué. Superior Court found the City had not breached its obligation of good faith in the awarding of the contract. Ricova’s error had been inexcusable, and the contract could not be resiliated on the ground of error. However, the judge noted the City had breached its obligation of good faith in the management of the contract, and it ordered the City to reimburse the amount paid that represented the difference between Ricova’s contract and that of the second company. It also ordered the City to reimburse the taxes added to the invoice concerning the workers. The Qué. C.A. was of the opinion the evidence did not support the finding the City had breached its obligation of good faith and its duty to act consistently and its duty to inform during the performance of the contract and at the time of its resiliation. Because the trial judgment contained a palpable error, it set aside the judgment in order to remove the reimbursement of the amount representing the difference between Ricova’s contract and that awarded to the new contractor. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Criminal Law: Harassment

Rizqy v. R., 2025 QCCA 1114 (42089)
Charges of criminal harassment, harassing communications and breach of release conditions were laid against Mr. Rizqy in relation to events that took place between October 2020 and October 2021. The Court of Québec convicted him on all of these charges, with the exception of the one for harassing communications, in respect of which it entered a stay of proceedings in accordance with the decision in Kienapple concerning multiple convictions. It sentenced him to 8 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ probation, to 8 months’ imprisonment to be served consecutively and 3 years’ probation, and to 60 days’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with the threat charge and 3 years’ probation. The Qué. Superior Court, sitting as summary conviction appeal court, dismissed the conviction appeal as well as the sentence appeal. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the application for leave to appeal that decision and declared the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence moot. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Physical Observations During Zoom Trial

D.S. v. R., 2024 ONCA 242 (42031)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of a judge’s physical observation of a complainant during a Zoom trial. “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 Assault; Breach of Recognizance

A. v. R., 2016 ONCA (42270)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of sexual assault & breach of recognizance. “The time to serve and file the response to the motion for an extension of time is extended pursuant to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada. The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Education: Child Discipline

R (H.C. Acting as Litigation Guardian) v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, et al., 2026 ONCA (42240)
There is a publication ban in this case, in the context of child discipline. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Family Law: Parental Responsibility

T.H. v. J.H., 2025 NLCA 41 (42189)
The parties were married and have three children together. One of the children is over 19 and therefore no longer considered a child of the marriage. The parties separated in 2022. On an interim basis, the father was granted sole decision making authority for the two children and the children were to reside primarily with the father. The father was to consult with the mother on major decisions regarding the children, but if there was a disagreement, the father would make the final decision. The mother was granted parenting time with the children to be determined by the father taking into consideration the children’s best interests. The parties were to mutually agree in advance on special and extraordinary expenses and if the parties were unable to agree, the father would make the final decision. The appeal was dismissed. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The motion for a stay is dismissed. The motion to add a party is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Municipal Law: Code of Conduct

Noreau v. Commission municipale du Québec, 2025 QCCA 755 (41965)
The Applicant, Jeanne Noreau, was a municipal councillor in the town of Cap-Santé. A conduct citation was filed against her for alleged violations of the municipality’s code of ethics and conduct. She was accused of behaving in a disrespectful and intimidating manner and of disclosing and then facilitating the dissemination of confidential information related to a psychological harassment complaint. The Commission municipale du Québec found the four alleged violations had been committed and imposed a total of 96 days of suspensions on her. Ms. Noreau then filed J.R. of that decision. The Qué. Superior Court allowed the J.R. in part, finding the Commission’s conclusion on the first violation was unreasonable because of an inadequate analysis of freedom of expression, but it upheld the conclusions on violations 2, 3 and 4 as well as the penalties imposed. The parties appealed the Qué. Superior Court’s decision. The Qué. C.A. allowed the Commission’s incidental appeal on violation 1, dismissed Ms. Noreau’s appeal on violations 2, 3 and 4, and restored the Commission’s decision in its entirety. It held  the Commission had taken freedom of expression into account and had correctly balanced it with the requirements of civility and respect, such the decision on violation 1 was reasonable, as were the conclusions on violations 2, 3 and 4. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed, with costs.”

Real Property: Sale Agreement Breach

Remington Development Corporation v. Canadian Pacific Railway Company, et al., 2025 ABCA 244 (42012)
Remington Development Corporation entered into three agreements to purchase contiguous parcels of land in downtown Calgary from the Respondent, Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR). Two of the transactions completed. The third did not. CPR asserted the land for that transaction was not surplus to its operational requirements and, therefore, the agreement did not require it to be sold. CPR sold the land instead to the Respondent Alberta on different terms. The trial judge determined CPR breached the terms of its agreement with Remington by not proceeding with the sale of the third parcel of land. She also determined Alberta had induced that breach. Applying a lost profits analysis, she held CPR and Alberta jointly and severally liable to Remington for damages in the amount of $165,166,431 plus interest. CPR and Alberta appealed that decision. Remington cross-appealed, arguing it should also be entitled to punitive damages. The majority of the Alta. C.A. allowed the appeal, dismissed the cross-appeal and ordered a new trial. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Tax: Self-employed v. Shareholder

G., et al. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2025 QCCA 492 (41882)
There is a publication ban in this case, as well as a sealing order. Certain information not available to the public, in the context of whether the sole shareholder of a professional corporation is an employee or shareholder for provincial tax purposes. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Transportation Law: Grain Shipments Cost Recovery

Canadian National Railway Company v. Canadian Transportation Agency, 2025 FCA 234 (42244)
Parliament regulates the pricing for rail transportation of grain from western Canada for export (“western grain”) by way of a Maximum Revenue Entitlement (“MRE”) system. That system provides the total revenue a prescribed railway company may earn for the movement of that grain is capped for each crop year. If the MRE is exceeded, the railway company must pay all excess revenue and any regulatory penalty to the Western Grains Research Foundation. The Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) is one of the two prescribed railway companies. The Canadian Transportation Agency sets the prescribed railway companies’ MRE for the coming crop year by a formula prescribed in the Canada Transportation Act. The formula relied on an inflation index which combined prospective and retrospective elements. The prospective element is a forecast projection, a percentage increase or decrease reflecting the year-over-year forecasted inflationary changes in the cost of railway inputs for the coming crop year. The retrospective element is a forecasting variance, an adjustment of the previous year’s forecast meant to capture any over- or under-forecasting of the previous year’s VRCPI based on actual costs. The forecasting variance is not retroactive — the adjustment is made prospectively with the aim of balancing variances from the forecast in the following year. While the Agency uses actual pricing data from the railway companies in setting the VRCPI, it is not cost-based. For the 2021/2022 crop year, CN’s VRCPI was adjusted to account for certain cost increases. However, it refused to adjust it to account for other cost increases, and, when its actual western grain revenue for the year exceeded the MRE, the Agency ordered CN to pay excess revenue and penalties to the Foundation (Determination R-2022-183). For the 2022/2023 crop year, the Agency increased DN’s VRCPI (Determination R-2022-50) and its MRE using the VRCPI applicable to 2022/2023, not the forecasting variance applicable to 2023/2024. When its actual western grain revenue for the year exceeded the MRE, the Agency ordered it to pay excess revenue and penalties of to the Foundation. For the 2023/2024 crop year, the Agency increased CN’s VRCPI significantly due to the retroactive adjustment (the forecasting variation). Section 32 of the Act allows an interested party to apply to the Agency to review, rescind or vary any of its previous decisions, and provides the Agency “may review, rescind or vary any decision or order made by it…if, in the opinion of the Agency…there has been a change in the facts or circumstances pertaining to the decision, order or hearing”. CN applied to the Agency under s. 32 for reconsideration of all three determinations. The Agency denied both requests on the grounds variations between the forecast and the actual costs were not “a change in the facts or circumstances” under s. 32. The Fed. C.A. dismissed the appeal. It saw no reviewable error in the Agency’s interpretation of s. 32 or in its application of s. 32. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”