mt_ignore
Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
jobsinlaw.ca
Supreme Court | Federal Court | Federal Appeal | Ontario Civil | Ontario Criminal | Tax Court

Federal Appeal

Case Law is a sample selection from the weekly summaries of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions published in Law Times newspaper.

Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in the newspaper or sampled here can be obtained by calling Case Law's photocopy department at:
(905) 841-6472 in Toronto,
(800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or
(800) 263-2037 in other provinces.
To request a case online

For more Case Law every week, subscribe to Law Times.

Contracts

Performance and breach

Appellant breached its level of service obligations

Respondent operated grain elevator facilities. Prior to construction of facilities parties entered into confidential contract. For several weeks respondent did not receive all of railcars that it ordered, and no car were delivered for six weeks to any of respondent’s facilities. Canadian Transportation Agency found appellant breached its level of service obligations to respondent for several weeks. Appellant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Agency did not err in its application of s. 113 to s. 116 of Canada Transportation Act. Agency did not err in concluding that appellant could not now complain that respondent’s orders were unreasonable because it agreed to supply number of cars ordered by respondent. Appellant was bound by agreement reached with respondent. Whether confidential contract was confidential contract for purposes of s. 113(4) of Act was not matter that could be appealed under Act. Agency’s interpretation of “Service Unit” as used in confidential contract was not extricable question of law and no appeal lay under Act from the Agency’s interpretation of term. There was no merit to respondent’s argument that it was denied procedural fairness.
Canadian National Railway v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Canada Ltd. (Sep. 16, 2016, F.C.A., J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-140-15) 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 681.


Civil Procedure

Pleadings

Plaintiff’s legal propositions were incoherent

Plaintiff’s earlier claims before Federal Court were dismissed on basis that statements of claim did not raise any cause of action and were bereft of any chance of success, or that statements of claim had no reasonable prospects of success. Plaintiff appealed. Appeal dismissed. There was no error in those conclusions. Legal propositions put forward by plaintiff were incoherent and devoid of any legal meaning. Plaintiff had assembled words, phrases, and concepts which had some meaning in context in which they were originally found but had none whatsoever in use which he had made of them. Although plaintiff’s claims shared some characteristics attributed to organized pseudo commercial argument (OPCA) litigants, OPCA phenomenon was not threat to orderly administration of justice to present court at current time. Plaintiff and his co-litigants were entitled to be heard but not entitled to blame their lack of success on bad faith and corruption of judges who hear and decide cases and on collusion between lawyers who represent Crown and judges and prothonotaries who heard their cases. Allegations would have consequences if plaintiff were to continue in present vein.
Dove v. R. (Sep. 15, 2016, F.C.A., J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and D.G. Near J.A., A-552-15) Decision at 261 A.C.W.S. (3d) 299 was affirmed. 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 739.


Communications Law

Broadcasting

Bell was providing telecommunications services in violation of Telecommunications Act (Can.)

Bell Mobility offered live streaming of certain television stations and related programming services to customers, including video-on-demand service, to customers who subscribed to wireless voice plan, data plan or tablet plan, charging customers not for data used but rather for time spent accessing the programs. Respondents filed complaint with Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), claiming that practice of exempting mobile TV services from data charges gives Bell an unfair advantage and unduly discriminates against their wireless customers and Bell’s competitors. Section 4 of Telecommunications Act (Can.) provides that it does not apply to broadcasting by broadcasting undertaking. CRTC noted that Bell was involved in “broadcasting” but found that functions performed by Bell to establish data connectivity and provide transport over wireless access networks was the same whether content being transported was mobile TV services, other broadcasting services or non-broadcasting services. CRTC also found that data connectivity required to transmit programs can only be established if customer acquires telecommunications service. From customer’s perspective, mobile TV services are accessed in same way such customers access other applications. CRTC concluded Bell was providing telecommunications services in violation of Act. Bell’s appeal dismissed. Exemption applies only “in respect of broadcasting by a broadcasting undertaking”, not all broadcasting. Person who has no control over content of programs and is only transmitting programs for another person, not transmitting such programs as broadcasting undertaking. Bell transmitted its mobile TV programs simultaneously with its voice and other data communications using same network. Transmission of voice and non-program data to customers is not “broadcasting” and Act not applicable. Reasonable result that all transmissions by Bell would be subject to same Act. Reasonable for CRTC to determine that Bell, by transmitting programs as part of network that simultaneously transmits voice and other data content, was merely providing mode of transmission and not acting as broadcasting undertaking.
Bell Mobility Inc. v. Klass (Jun. 20, 2016, F.C.A., Eleanor R. Dawson J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and Donald J. Rennie J.A., A-193-15) 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 517.


Civil Procedure

Affidavits

Applicant failed to demonstrate reviewable error

Applicant gave birth in Ontario during period of time chosen by Statistics Canada for study linking birth records to census data. Privacy Commissioner dismissed applicant’s complaint under Privacy Act (Can.) that birth records were used without her consent. Applicant brought application for judicial review. Respondent Director-General for Statistics Canada research centres (D-G) filed two affidavits stating applicant’s records were not used in study and that names were removed after linkage, minimizing any intrusion. Applicant brought unsuccessful motion to, among other things, have adverse inference drawn from D-G’s affidavit. Motions judge determined that adverse inferences pursuant to R. 81(2) of Federal Courts Rules (Can.) were not intended for inconsistencies or reliance on third-party evidence, that D-G’s role put her in position to know facts sworn were true, that D-G did provide some evidence of persons having personal knowledge, that affidavit was not clearly imprecise or plagued by inconsistencies, and that matter was best left for application judge. Applicant appealed. Appeal dismissed. Applicant failed to demonstrate reviewable error in motions judge’s refusal to compel D-G to testify. As for applicant’s request that adverse inference be drawn from fact that D-G’s affidavits were based on information and belief, judge determined admissibility of affidavits by conducting admissibility analysis based on personal knowledge of D-G and in so doing, committed no error. Motions judge correctly determined that D-G, by virtue of government responsibilities, was in position to depose to matters in question without necessarily having personal knowledge and that whether adverse inference should be drawn from otherwise admissible evidence was matter better left for application judge.
O’Grady v. Canada (Attorney General) (Sep. 6, 2016, F.C.A., Trudel J.A., Near J.A., and Donald J. Rennie J.A., A-21-16) Decision at 263 A.C.W.S. (3d) 31 was affirmed. 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 648.


Corporations

Directors

Judge erred in concluding that taxpayers resigned as directors

Taxpayers G and C were former directors of company whose affairs and business was managed and operated by their husbands. In 2001, taxpayers had resignations prepared but never signed them. In 2008, Minister of National Revenue assessed taxpayers for source deductions that company failed to remit from 2000 to 2005, pursuant to s. 227.1 of Income Tax Act (Act) (Can.). Tax Court judge allowed taxpayers’ appeals. Judge held that there were valid and effective resignations by each of taxpayers, given preparation of draft letters and verbal communication of resignation to husbands. In alternative, judge found that C had reasonable belief she had resigned and exercised due diligence. Minister appealed. Appeals allowed. Judge erred in concluding that taxpayers resigned as directors. In absence of communication of written resignation to company, resignation was not effective. Two-year limitation period in s. 227.1(4) of Act was triggered by date of resignation, requiring objective verification of status of directors. In finding that C exercised due diligence, judge committed error on extricable question of law. Director’s belief that she had resigned had no correspondence to underlying purposes of s. 121(2) of Business Corporations Act (Ont.) and its emphasis on objectively verifiable communication of resignation to company. To allow subjective intention would undermine corporate governance.
Chriss v. R. (Sep. 22, 2016, F.C.A., David Stratas J.A., D.G. Near J.A., and Donald J. Rennie J.A., A-137-15, A-138-15) Decision at 244 A.C.W.S. (3d) 493 was reversed. 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 440.


Aboriginal Peoples

General

Band’s appeal under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 was dismissed

National Energy Board was engaged in review of pipeline project. Aboriginal band was intervenor in proceedings. Project was found to be ready to proceed to assessment, was found to be designated project to be assessed under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, and order put in place for assessment. Report was issued stating that project should go forward on conditions, and further round of consultation was to take place. Band claimed that board had duty to consult aboriginal persons which was not met, that board had duty under s. 18 of Act to collaborate with band as jurisdiction, that duty of fairness was breached and that consideration of marine shipping activities was improperly not considered. Band appealed orders regarding assessment. Appeal dismissed. Questions regarding duty to consult had not been raised at hearing and it was improper to deal with them on appeal. Issues could have been raised at trial and would also be addressed by governor in council. Much of evidence before court had not been before Board. Hearing order was not final and was subject to amendment. Band had opportunity to respond to completeness decision which other intervenors had used, while band did not follow proper procedure. Board made offer to consult with all parties considered jurisdictions, and band failed to provide material to make jurisdictional determination. Position that board had duty to consult was not raised until midway through proceedings. Putting issue before board would not have delayed matter. Premature for Crown to address issues when consultation was ongoing and governor in council had not made determination.
Tsleil-Wautuh Nation v. National Energy Board (Sep. 6, 2016, F.C.A., Johanne Gauthier J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason J.A., A-386-14) 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 226.


Administrative Law

Judicial review

Canadian Transportation Agency fettered its discretion

Appellant filed complaint with Canadian Transportation Agency (“Agency”) alleging that practices of respondent relating to transportation of large persons were discriminatory, contrary to Air Transportation Regulations (Ont.) and contrary to prevision decision of Agency. Appellant relied on email from respondent to passenger. Appellant filed submissions regarding his standing to bring complaint and respondent responded. Agency dismissed complaint of discriminatory practices filed by appellant against respondent on preliminary basis that he lacked standing to bring complaint. Appellant appealed under Canada Transportation Act. Appeal allowed. Decision was unreasonable. Agency fettered its discretion. Agency erred in superimposing jurisprudence with respect to standing on regulatory scheme, thereby ignoring wording of Act and its purpose and intent. Fact that complainant was not directly affected by fare, rate, charge, or term or condition complained of and may not even meet requirements of public standing, was not to be determinative. If objective was to ensure that air carriers provided their services free from unreasonable or unduly discriminatory practices, one should not have to wait until having been subjected to such practices before being allowed to file complaint. There was no sound reason to limit standing under Act to those with direct, personal interest in matter.
Lukács v. Canadian Transportation Agency (Sep. 7, 2016, F.C.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., A.F. Scott J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-135-15) 270 A.C.W.S. (3d) 63.


<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 5 of 34

  • Access to Justice
    Access to Justice The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG) strives to inform the public on the importance of the people having access to legal resources and…
  • Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights
    Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights Legal Aid Ontario lawyers held three protests in July to push the provincial government to support their attempts to unionize. The lawyers have been in…
  • Jane-Finch community gets employment law help
    Jane-Finch community gets employment law help Osgoode Hall Law School's Community Legal Aid Services Programme recently opened an employment law division for Toronto's Jane-Finch community.Phanath Im, review counsel for the division,…
More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

A Law Times columnist says criminal law is out of step and argues there should be an immediate moratorium on HIV non-disclosure prosecutions, unless there is alleged intentional transmission. Do you agree?
Yes, the unjust criminalization of people living with HIV needs to change. The law has become more draconian even as HIV has become more manageable and as transmission risks decrease.
No, the law should remain as it is, and the Ministry of the Attorney General should not change its approach.