Cases set for hearing at Federal Court of Appeal involve transportation and industrial relations
This coming week, hearings set before the Supreme Court of Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, and Federal Court included matters concerning the Indian Act, Civil Code of Québec, Criminal Code, Canada Transportation Act, and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Supreme Court set S. Emond and C. Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Company, 41077 on Mar. 18, Tuesday. Here, the appellants bought a residential homeowners’ insurance policy from the respondent insurer. Due to flooding in April 2019, their home in the catchment area of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) was considered a total loss.
The appellants argued that the guaranteed rebuilding cost (GRC) coverage endorsement fully guaranteed the costs to rebuild their home. The insurer countered that an exclusion in the policy excluded from coverage the costs for complying with the applicable by-laws and regulations, including the MVCA’s regulation policies.
An application judge held that the GRC coverage was meant to guarantee the appellants’ rebuilding costs, without the operation of any rule, regulation, by-law, or ordinance limiting this coverage. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the insurer’s appeal. Given the exclusion, the policy did not cover increased costs to comply with the MVCA’s regulation policies, the appeal court said.
The Supreme Court scheduled Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v. Sylvestre, et al., 41131 on Mar. 19, Wednesday. In 2004, the respondents in this case obtained judgments against the appellant. Under art. 2924 of the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ), a ten-year prescriptive period applied to the judgments. In this case, prescription was interrupted between 2005–07 then started running again.
A bailiff had the authority to seize the appellant’s movable property under a notice of execution served on the appellant in November 2016. But the bailiff expressed a concern that s. 89 of the Indian Act, 1985 exempted the property from seizure. The respondents registered a legal hypothec against the property.
The appellant asked the court to declare the applicable prescriptive period expired before the respondents’ registration of the hypothec. The trial judge determined that the service of the notice of execution on the appellant interrupted prescription in 2016. The Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge’s decision.
The Supreme Court set R.A. v. His Majesty the King, 41421 on Mar. 20, Thursday. The appellant in this case faced a charge of indecently assaulting the five-year-old complainant under s. 149 of the Criminal Code, 1970.
The British Columbia Provincial Court acquitted the appellant. The court saw no assault under the Criminal Code, no direct and intentional application of force to the complainant, and no attempt or threat to apply force to the complainant.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal, set aside the acquittal, convicted the appellant of indecent assault, and remitted the question of the sentence to the Provincial Court. The appeal court decided that the appellant touched the complainant in a way that amounted to assault.
The Supreme Court scheduled P.B. v. His Majesty the King, 41422 on Mar. 21, Friday. The appellant in this case was charged with sexual assault. He argued that the testimony of the complainant and sole witness was unreliable in terms of her memory of the relevant events and was insufficiently credible or reliable to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and found the appellant guilty. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed the appeal upon finding enough detail in the judge’s reasons to permit appellate review. The evidence reasonably supported the judge’s findings on the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s evidence, the majority said.
The appeal court set East Coast Hydraulics & Machinery (2009) Limited v. ILA, Local 1975, A-227-24 on Mar. 20, Thursday. This matter arose from a Canada Industrial Relations Board decision certifying the respondent as a bargaining unit. A judicial review application asked the appeal court to quash or set aside the decision based on lack of jurisdiction.
The appeal court scheduled Canadian National Railway Company v. Alberta Pacific Forest Industries Inc., A-343-23 on Mar. 20, Thursday. In this matter involving the Canada Transportation Act, 1996, a judicial review application wanted to quash a Canada Transportation Agency decision.
The application alleged that the decision was unreasonable since it failed to provide a transparent and intelligible justification for the result in this case, was unjustified amid the factual constraints, and was not based on an internally coherent reasoning.
The court set Murat v. His Majesty the King, T-1742-16 on Mar. 19, Wednesday. This case arose from the plaintiff’s arrest and detainment. He claimed damages based on negligence, negligent investigation, false imprisonment, and breaches of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The plaintiff also requested special damages, aggravated damages, punitive damages, and damages for past and future loss of income. Eight years after bringing the underlying proceeding, he moved to amend his statement of claim to add an allegation of disguised extradition, among other allegations.
Last Feb. 11, in Murat v. Canada, 2025 FC 266, the Federal Court issued an order partly granting and partly dismissing the plaintiff’s motion. The court allowed him to amend specific paragraphs in the statement of claim but did not permit him to make other amendments.
