Federal courts examine matters involving tax, benefits, patents, alleged bullying and negligence
This week, Canada’s highest court dealt a sexual assault case from military courts and conviction appeals before Quebec courts involving the criminal offences of fraud, uttering threats, and committing assault with a weapon.
On Tuesday, the court heard His Majesty the King v. Private D.T. Vu, 40655. A military judge acquitted the respondent of sexual assault under s. 130 of the National Defence Act, 1985 upon finding that the Crown failed to prove a lack of subjective consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court Martial Appeal Court’s majority dismissed the Crown’s appeal and ruled that the military judge made no legal error in his analysis leading to the acquittal. An issue before the Supreme Court was whether the military judge failed to consider cumulatively all the evidence.
On Wednesday, the court heard Nicolas Landry v. His Majesty the King, 40394. The appellant was temporarily off work due to medical problems. Following his misrepresentation about his work activities, an arbitrator found him entitled to permanent disability benefits from his employer.
The trial judge convicted the appellant of the offence of fraud over $5,000. The Quebec Court of Appeal’s majority upheld this decision. An issue before the Supreme Court was whether the majority interpreted an essential element of the offence too broadly.
On Thursday, the court will hear Yves Caleb Jr. Charles v. His Majesty the King, 40319. A trial judge allowed the prosecution to introduce into evidence as hearsay an out-of-court statement made by a witness refusing to cooperate. The Court of Quebec convicted the appellant of assault with a weapon, using an imitation firearm in committing assault, and uttering threats.
The Quebec Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed the appeal. The dissenting judge wanted a new trial because he found that the out-of-court statement failed to satisfy the reliability requirement for admission into evidence.
On Tuesday, the court heard Tpine Leasing Capital Corporation v. His Majesty the King, A-243-22. The appellant challenged the Tax Court of Canada’s order granting the respondent leave to amend its reply to set out the issue of whether the amount of tax assessed in the reassessment was too high.
Also on Tuesday, the court heard Midjohoho Franck Gloglo v. Minister of National Revenue, A-225-22. The appellant questioned the Tax Court of Canada’s quashal of the appellant's case relating to contributions to the Canadian Pension Plan.
On Wednesday, the court heard Eli Lilly Canada Inc. et al v. Apotex et al, A-244-22. The appellants asked the appellate court to set aside the Federal Court’s summary trial judgment and to declare a Canadian patent valid.
On Thursday, the court will hear Timothy E. Leahy v. The Attorney General of Canada, A-159-23. The appellant sought to abolish the Canadian Judicial Council unless it would agree to investigate in good faith public complaints against justices allegedly abusing their authority.
Also on Thursday, the court will hear Dye & Durham Limited et al. v. John Paul Ingarra et al., A-208-23. The appellant claimed that a lawyer seriously misused its confidential information to prepare a putative class action alleging conspiracy against it.
On Tuesday, the court heard Yeghia Kibalian v. The Crown in the Right of His Majesty the King, T-2147-23. This claim requested a temporary injunction ordering the defendant to cease interfering with the plaintiff's right to work, earn, gain, and pursue a living.
On Thursday, the court will hear Walter Pynn v. His Majesty the King, T-2219-23. The plaintiff, seeking general damages over $50,000, allegedly faced bullying, intimidation, harassment, and persecution fostered and condoned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s leadership.
Also on Thursday, the court will hear Dr. William Imona-Russel v. Koskie Minsky LLP, T-2707-22. The plaintiff requested general damages of $45,000, damages of $15,000 for alleged negligence, punitive damages of $20,000, and damages of $20,000 for alleged violations of the Privacy Act, the Criminal Code, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
On Friday, the court will hear Sandra Hollows v. Canada Revenue Agency, T-422-23. This judicial review application claimed that the applicant’s income met the required minimum for eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit.
