Supreme Court of Canada Bulletin, April 28, 2022 – Applications for leave to appeal decided
39965 Camille Labit c. Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) QC Civil procedure — Abuse of procedure — Application to dismiss
39966 FIQ – Syndicat des professionnelles en soins de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal c. Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, et al. QC Labour law — Identification of true employer in tripartite relationship
40003 Construction Broccolini inc. / Broccolini Construction Inc. c. Lambert Somec inc. QC Arbitration — Arbitration award — Homologation
Frederick Langford Sharp v. Autorité des Marchés Financiers –and- Shawn Van Damme, Vincenzo Antonio Carnovale, Pasquale Antonio Rocca, Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal – and between – Shawn Van Damme, Vincenzo Antonio Carnovale, Pasquale Antonio Rocca v. Autorité des Marchés Financiers – and – Frederick Langford Sharp (Que.)
Constitutional law — Constitutional applicability — Private international law
In 2017, the respondent (AMF) brought an action before the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (FMAT) alleging that the applicants participated in a transnational pump and dump scheme by improperly influencing or manipulating the price of a stock in contravention of theQuebec Securities Act, CQLR, c. V‑1.1. According to the AMF, the applicants, who are residents of B.C., made financial transactions through offshore companies incorporated in several countries with bank accounts in Europe. AMF alleged that they acted in concert to acquire the shares of a Nevada company (Solo), give it a legitimate face and promote its business for the purpose of fraudulently increasing the value of its shares and then selling them for a profit, for distribution among themselves. Solo’s shares are traded on an over‑the‑counter market in New York. The AMF alleged that at all material times, Solo was under the direction of a Québec resident and was a reporting issuer in Québec with a business address in Montreal. It also alleged that the misleading press releases and promotional materials, a portion of which originated in Montreal, were accessible to Québec residents and that approximately fifteen investors in Québec lost a total of $5,000 as a result of the activities. AMF’s action sought to have the FMAT order the applicants to cease any activity in respect of a transaction in securities; prohibit them from acting as directors or officers of an issuer, dealer, adviser or investment fund manager for five years; and impose administrative penalties on them, all pursuant to ss. 265, 273.3, 195.2, 199.1(1) and 273.1 of the Securities Act.
The applicants brought preliminary motions for declinatory exceptions arguing that the FMAT was without jurisdiction. The FMAT denied the applicants’ motions and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the action: 2017 QCTMF 114 (CanLII). The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the application for judicial review, and the Quebec Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Cindy Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation – and – Government of Yukon, Attorney General of Canada (Y.T.)
The applicant, Cindy Dickson, is a member of the respondent Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation (“VGFN”) in the Yukon; she resides in Whitehorse, for family medical reasons and other socio‑economic reasons. Ms. Dickson sought to stand for election to the Council of the VGFN. However, the VGFN constitution specifies that any Councillor must reside on Settlement Land, approximately 800 km away (the “residency requirement”); it also states that any successful candidate for Chief or Councillor who does not already reside on Settlement Land must relocate there within 14 days of election day. Given Ms. Dickson’s unwillingness to move, the VGFN rejected Ms. Dickson’s candidacy. Ms. Dickson sought a declaration in court that the residency requirement breached her right to equality protected under s. 15(1) of the Charter.
The chambers judge issued several declarations, concluding that while the Charter applies to the VGFN and to the residency requirement in the VGFN constitution, the residency requirement itself does not infringe s. 15(1). However, the time limit for relocation — “within 14 days” — did infringe s. 15(1), and should be declared to be of no force and effect (the declaration was suspended for 18 months). Alternatively, if this was incorrect and the residency requirement does infringe s. 15(1), the judge concluded that s. 25 of the Charter would apply to “shield” the residency requirement (still without the time limit) from review. The Court of Appeal allowed both Ms. Dickson’s appeal and the VGFN’s cross‑appeal. It found that the chambers judge erred in presumptively concluding that there was no s. 15(1) infringement and that severance of the time limit could save the requirement; rather, it concluded that, subject to any justification under s. 1 of the Charter, the residency requirement as a whole (with or without the time limit) does infringe s. 15(1). However, the Court of Appeal also concluded that, if there were an unjustified breach of s. 15(1), s. 25 of the Charter would shield the residency requirement from challenge. A majority of the Court of Appeal issued a number of declarations to that effect.
Olivier Charrière v. Her Majesty the Queen (Que.)
In the spring of 2008, the applicant, Olivier Charrière, incorporated Les Élévateurs de la Rive‑Nord 2008 inc., a company involved in the drying, storage and trade of grain. As part of his business activities, Mr. Charrière received grain from various producers. Following a complaint by one producer, the police initiated an investigation and Mr. Charrière was charged with theft and fraud. In August 2017, he brought a motion in which he asked that certain counts be divided up and detailed. The counts were then divided into nine counts. In December 2017, following a trial by judge and jury, Mr. Charrière was convicted of two of the nine counts: one count of theft of grain with a value of more than $5,000 pursuant to s. 334(a) Cr. C., and one count of fraud over $5,000 pursuant to s. 380(1)(a) Cr. C.
The Quebec Superior Court sentenced Mr. Charrière to two unconditional terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently: 20 months on the count of theft and 36 months on the count of fraud. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal from the verdicts and allowed the appeal from the sentence; it reduced the sentence by replacing the unconditional period of imprisonment with a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community.
Velly Janvier and Emmanuelle Pélissier v. Agence du revenu du Québec (Que.)
Civil procedure — Case management — Self‑represented parties
The applicant spouses, Mr. Janvier and Ms. Pélissier, were the subject of a tax audit by the respondent, the Agence du revenu du Québec (ARQ), under an anti‑tax evasion program. The applicants jointly operated an intermediate resource for persons with intellectual disabilities and pervasive developmental disorders. They entered into a contract with the Centre de réadaptation en déficience intellectuelle et troubles envahissants de Montréal, from which they received a monthly payment for services rendered. As a result of the audit, the ARQ determined that the applicants had not reported the income derived from operating the intermediate resource, and it found significant discrepancies between the applicants’ lifestyle and their reported income. The ARQ adjusted the applicants’ taxable reported income and their business income, and assessed them and imposed penalties for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 taxation years. The applicants appealed the ARQ’s decision to the Court of Québec, which dismissed their respective appeals. The applicants, who were not represented by a lawyer in the Court of Québec, were apparently assisted by an adviser, Mr. Alcindor, who was not a member of the legal profession, both in the preparation of documents to contest the notices of assessment and during the court hearing. In the Court of Appeal, the lawyer newly retained by the applicants allegedly raised this situation, which he considered irregular, but did not include it in the appeal brief as a ground of appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. The applicants have applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, asking that the Court of Appeal’s decision be set aside and that their cases be set down again for trial in the Court of Québec so that they can have a new trial that is fair.
Government of Nunavut v. Jane Doe (G.E.B. #51) (Nvt)
Judgments and orders — Summary judgments
The respondent brought an action against the Hamlet of Pangnirtung, and the Government of Nunavut for damages for the sexual harassment she experienced while employed by the Hamlet from May to August 2018. The alleged perpetrator was alleged to have made highly sexualized, inappropriate comments to the respondent and to have terminated her employment when she refused to engage in a sexual relationship with him. The Government of Nunavut brought a motion to strike the respondent’s statement of claim pursuant to Rule 129(1) of the Rules of Court, arguing that it disclosed no cause of action as against it, was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. That motion was dismissed. This decision was upheld on appeal.
Camille Labit v. Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CNESST) (Que.)
Civil procedure — Abuse of procedure — Application to dismiss
Since November 2018, the applicant has received benefits from Indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels (“IVAC”), which falls under the jurisdiction of the respondent, the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (“CNESST”). Believing that her complete file had been unlawfully given to her former spouse’s lawyer in the course of divorce proceedings, the applicant claimed $177,684.67 in damages from IVAC. The CNESST brought an application to dismiss, relying on the relative immunity provided for in s. 161 of the Act respecting occupational health and safety, CQLR, c. S‑2.1.
The Superior Court granted the CNESST’s application to dismiss the applicant’s originating application for damages and to declare it abusive, and dismissed the originating application. It found that IVAC’s representative had been acting in the exercise of her functions when she appeared at the hearing and that she had provided the documents requested in the subpoena served on IVAC. In addition, the allegations were insufficient for a finding of bad faith. The action was therefore clearly unfounded, as it had no chance of success given the relative immunity provided for in s. 161 for the officer who had done the impugned act in good faith in the exercise of her functions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, since it was of the view that there was no weakness in the judgment and no question that warranted its attention.
Ty Watts v. Mountain Country Property Management Ltd. (B.C.)
Administrative law — Judicial review — Residential tenancy agreement
Mr. Watts failed to pay rent due under a residential lease and was served with a notice of termination of the tenancy. His application to the Residential Tenancy Branch for relief was dismissed and an application to the Residential Tenancy Branch for review was dismissed. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed an application for judicial review. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.
L.S. v. E.P. (Que.)
Family law — Divorce — Corollary relief
The parties married in 1994 and had three children born in 1999, 2004 and 2010. E.P. began divorce proceedings in October 2019. In 2021, the Superior Court granted a divorce and ruled on corollary relief, including custody of the parties’ minor children, child support, and partition of the family patrimony and the matrimonial regime.
On appeal, L.S. raised 28 errors of law and of fact, most of which pertain to the partition of the family patrimony and the matrimonial regime, and filed an application for permission to present indispensable new evidence. E.P. filed an application to dismiss the appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence that L.S. sought to introduce was not new or indispensable and was largely undefined, and dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the appeal had no reasonable chance of success, and dismissed the appeal.
Dale Richardson v. Kimberley Richardson (Sask.)
Civil procedure — Appeals
The parties have been involved in ongoing family proceedings. There have been numerous orders issued below including a chambers decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, dated July 23, 2020 and December 11, 2020. The applicant did not file an appeal of the July decision and a motion for an extension of time to do so was eventually dismissed. The applicant filed a notice of appeal of the December decision but never perfected the appeal.
Instead of perfecting the appeal, in February 2021, the applicant filed two applications that were styled as being in relation to his appeal but entitled “Motion for a Writ of Certiorari” and “Ex parte Motion for Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition”. The Court of Appeal described them as “preliminary to an appeal from a chambers decision of a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench dated December 11, 2020”.
Both applications were dismissed by a single judge of the Court of Appeal. The applicant appealed that order to a panel of three judges, which was also dismissed.
Zi An Wang v. Ryan Lee, Watson Geopell LLP (B.C.)
Appeals — Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal dismissed
The applicant sued Ryan Lee and his law firm. Mr. Lee had represented the applicant’s former employees in an adverse capacity to the applicant. The respondents’ application to strike the applicant’s statement of claim was granted. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
Charles Zi An Wang v. Judy Jiang, Adele Sun, Law Society of British Columbia, CNS Law Corporation (B.C.)
Appeals — Applicant’s applications to extend time to bring the appeals dismissed
Mr. Wang sued the respondents. The respondents applied to summarily strike, and dismiss Mr. Wang’s claims against them. Justice Walker granted CNS Law Corporation, Ms. Jiang, and Ms. Sun’s application to have Mr. Wang’s claims against them dismissed. Justice MacIntosh dismissed Mr. Wang’s claims against the Law Society of British Columbia. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Wang’s applications to extend time to bring the appeals.
Anderson T. Walcott v. Toronto Transit Commission (Ont.)
Civil procedure — No genuine issue requiring a trial — Intellectual property
The applicant wrote the respondent (TTC) in 1994, offering to create a bus and subway route map guide. The TTC declined, stating that such a guide was already available to its passengers. In 1996, the appellant was concerned about the TTC route maps appearing in the Yellow Pages Directory. The TTC responded that those route maps had been internally generated, were not based on the applicant’s proposed guide, and had been available for years. After obtaining a Certificate of Registration for a guide from the United States Copyright Office, the applicant commenced an action, taking the position that by obtaining the Certificate he became the only legal source for publication of transit routes and schedules in Canada, the U.S., and worldwide. The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages of $2,000,000 from the TTC. The TTC brought a cross‑motion to dismiss the claim.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s motion for summary judgment, granted the respondent’s cross‑motion to dismiss the claim, and dismissed the claim. The motions judge found no evidence of any original expression in the applicant’s maps and no evidentiary basis to support the applicant’s claim of copyright. There was also no evidence that the TCC had used or adapted the applicant’s maps. Even if he had copyright in the guide, the scope of copyright would not preclude the TTC from publishing route maps or transit information, and there would have been no copyright infringement. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal.
Wen Wang, Wei Li v. Mattamy Corporation, Mattamy Homes Limited, Mattamy (Preserve) Limited (Ont.)
Civil procedure — Stay — Appeals
Wen Wang and Wei Li failed to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a home and commenced an action. A Master of the Ontario Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion setting aside a noting in default, stayed the action in favour of arbitration, and granted an adjournment. The Ontario Divisional Court denied an extension of time to file an appeal and dismissed a motion for review. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal.
Blenda Construction Inc. and Edica Group Inc. v. Association de la construction du Québec (ACQ), Corporation of Master Pipe-Mechanics of Québec (CMMTQ), Corporation of Master Electricians of Québec (CMEQ) and Bureau des soumissions déposées du Québec (BSDQ) – and – Attorney General of Quebec (Que.)
The respondents, Association de la construction du Québec, Corporation of Master Pipe‑Mechanics of Québec, Corporation of Master Electricians of Québec and Bureau des soumissions déposées du Québec (“BSDQ”) (collectively referred to as “ACQ”), are non‑profit bodies whose functions include ensuring compliance with the rules in the BSDQ’s Code de soumission (“Code”), the purpose of which is to improve competition in the construction industry. Any contractor that wishes to participate in a bid process governed by the BSDQ must undertake by contract to comply with the Code. The applicants, Blenda Construction Inc. and Edica Group Inc., made such an undertaking. In January 2020, the ACQ’s professional practice and discipline committee rendered four decisions in which it found that the applicants had contravened the Code. In February 2020, the applicants were notified by letter of the committee’s findings and of the claim against them for $56,600 in penalties. They appealed to the ACQ’s discipline appeal board, which upheld the findings and the resulting claim for penalties. After receiving the May 2020 letter setting out the appeal board’s ruling, the applicants decided to contest the decisions by filing an application for a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court. In response, the ACQ applied to dismiss that application. At the same time, in August 2020, the ACQ filed an originating application against the applicants in the Court of Québec in order to claim payment of the penalties. The applicants responded by applying for a stay of proceedings until final judgment had been rendered on the application to dismiss in the proceeding brought in the Superior Court. The Superior Court allowed the application to dismiss and dismissed the originating application for a declaratory judgment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Yahya Khader, Ibrahim L. Khader, George Daher v. SNC-Lavalin Inc. (Que.)
Contracts — Civil liability
The applicants Yahya Khader, Ibrahim L. Khader and George Daher were employees of the Saudi company Zuhair Fayez Partnership (“ZFP”). They established the Industrial Division therein, allowing ZFP to engage in various industrial engineering projects in Saudi Arabia. The applicants and ZFP agreed on various compensation arrangements with a view to sharing the profits generated by the Industrial Division or its value, including in the event it were to be transferred in whole or in part to a third party. In January 2010, ZFP and the respondent SNC‑Lavalin Inc. (“SNC”) agreed to pool their resources and establish Newco, a company of which they would be the shareholders and which would allow them to do business with a major client in Saudi Arabia. In April 2010, ZFP entered into a new compensation agreement with the applicants, entitled “Management Compensation Agreement” (“MCA”). In November 2011, following several disagreements, ZFP dismissed the applicants on various grounds and unilaterally terminated all their contracts, including the MCA. In June 2012, ZFP and SNC finalized their agreement and signed a “Shareholders’ Agreement” providing for the creation of Newco.
The applicants instituted proceedings before the courts, claiming that SNC induced ZFP to terminate their employment, and seeking damages in the amount of $33,194,961.22 from SNC on the basis of extra‑contractual fault. The Superior Court dismissed the applicants’ action and declared it be manifestly unfounded and abusive. The Court of Appeal granted their application to adduce indispensable new evidence regarding three Saudi judgments that confirmed the unlawful termination of the worker contract, but dismissed their appeal.
Kipling Warner v. Kevin Hobbs, Lisa Cheng, Vanbex Group Inc. (B.C.)
Courts — Dismissal of proceeding that limits communication on matter of public interest
Kipling Warner was an employee of Vanbex Group Inc. for two months in 2016. Kevin Hobbs and Lisa Cheng are Vanbex’s officers, directors and major shareholders. In 2017, Mr. Warner sent an email to a member of the Vancouver Police Department expressing his suspicion that Mr. Hobbs was using Vanbex for criminal purposes. When he learned that the Vancouver Police were not continuing its investigation, he submitted an online tip to the British Columbia Securities Commission regarding Vanbex and Mr. Hobbs. He also reported his concerns to the RCMP. The Director of Civil Forfeiture pursued the matter. Shortly after an ex parte preservation order was granted, the matter began to appear in the news.
Mr. Hobbs and Ms. Cheng commenced this proceeding, alleging that Mr. Warner’s statements to the authorities were false and that they had caused or were a significant contributing cause to the initiation of the CF action, which had caused them harm. Before he filed his defence, Mr. Warner brought an application to dismiss the claim under s. 4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act, S.B.C. 2019, c. 3 (“PPPA”).
The chambers judge allowed the application under the PPPA and dismissed the defamation action. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
Kaban Resources Inc. v. Goldcorp Inc., Goldcorp Holdings (Barbados) Ltd., Guatemala Holdings (Barbados) Limited (B.C.)
Contracts — Breach — Repudiation
The applicant purchaser and the respondent vendors entered into a letter agreement for the purchase of an undeveloped gold‑silver mine in Guatemala. After having difficulty satisfying its obligation to obtain financing, the applicant informed the respondents that it had entered into an agreement with a third party. Subject to the respondents’ consent, the third party would provide financing in exchange for control of the purchaser, participation in the project and other terms and conditions. When the respondents rejected the proposed terms, the applicant treated it as a repudiation of the original agreement and filed a notice of civil claim against the respondents. The respondents applied for dismissal of the claim. The Supreme Court of British Columbia granted the respondents’ application and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.
Galina Kurdina v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation (Ont.)
The applicant, Ms. Kurdina, was a resident in a rental unit owned by the respondent, Toronto Community Housing Corporation (“TCHC”). In 2017-2018, parts of the building in which Ms. Kurdina lived were infested with bedbugs. In response, TCHC completed corrective pest control treatments. In 2018, Ms. Kurdina applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board (“LTB”) for an order stating that TCHC had failed to meet the landlord’s maintenance obligations under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, and requesting approximately $1,600 in compensation for expenses she claimed were related to remedying a bedbug infestation in her unit.
The LTB found that TCHC had responded to Ms. Kurdina’s complaints and had treated the building for bedbugs in a timely manner, and dismissed the application. The LTB also dismissed Ms. Kurdina’s subsequent application for review of the initial order. The Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court dismissed Ms. Kurdina’s motion to admit fresh evidence and dismissed her appeal of the review order. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Kurdina’s motion for leave to appeal, without reasons.
Justin Primmer v. Her Majesty the Queen (Ont.)
Criminal law — Evidence — Use of prior consistent statements
A complainant did not disclose assaults to family, friends or police. When contacted by the police and the Children’s Aid Society, she repeatedly denied that she had been assaulted. At trial, she admitted having lied and she described assaults by Mr. Primmer. Witnesses testified that the complainant eventually made prior consistent statements alleging Mr. Primmer assaulted her. Mr. Primmer was convicted for assault, aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats to property. He was declared a dangerous offender. An indeterminate sentence was ordered. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the convictions and sentence.
Yannis Mallat, Olivier Paris and Francis Baillet v. Autorité des marchés financiers de France and Autorité des marchés financiers – and – Attorney General of Quebec (Que.)
Civil procedure — Motion to dismiss — Declinatory exception
In February 2014, the respondent Autorité des marchés financiers de France (AMFF) decided to initiate an investigation in France concerning the financial information and market for the stock of Ubisoft Entertainment S.A. (Ubisoft France) because of transactions involving the sale of shares by employees of its Canadian subsidiary (Ubisoft Canada) prior to an announcement on October 15, 2013 that the release of a game was being postponed. Under the OICV‑IOSCO Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Consultation and Cooperation and the Exchange of Information, the AMFF sent a request for assistance to the respondent and applicant on cross‑appeal, the Autorité des marchés financiers of the province of Quebec (AMF), in order to obtain the complete mailboxes of Ubisoft Canada employees, including the applicants and respondents on cross‑appeal, Mr. Mallat, Mr. Paris and Mr. Baillet. Further to that request, the AMF opened an investigation file and, by summons in March 2014, required Ubisoft Canada to provide information and documents concerning the applicants. Those documents were sent to the AMFF in France through Ubisoft France. After the applicants refused to meet voluntarily with the AMFF investigators, the AMF sent them a summons to appear for an examination at the AMF’s offices in October 2014, pursuant to the Securities Act. Following the examinations by the AMFF, the AMF, which had been present at them, gave the AMFF copies of the recording or transcript of the examinations, informed the applicants of their fundamental rights, and then closed the file without taking any action against the applicants. However, the AMFF continued the investigation in France. In December 2016, the AMFF’s Enforcement Committee imposed financial penalties on the applicants. It also declared the examinations conducted in Quebec with the AMF’s assistance to be null. In December 2016, the applicants filed an application in the Superior Court against the AMF and the AMFF for [translation] “judicial review, constitutional review and damages”. The Superior Court allowed the applications to dismiss filed by the AMF and the AMFF and dismissed the application for judicial review, constitutional review and damages. The appeal against the AMFF was dismissed, and the appeal against the AMF was allowed in part.
FIQ – Syndicat des professionnelles en soins de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal v. Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, 9104-8306 Québec inc. (Urgence médicale Code Bleu), Agence M.D. Santé inc., 24/7 Expertise en soins de santé inc., Services de personnel infirmier progressif inc., Médic-Or (Ressources santé Lachance inc.), Placement Premier Soin, 9160-3886 Québec inc., ASICC-MED and S.O.S. Nurse Inc. – and – Administrative Labour Tribunal, Solu Med inc., Agence Visa Santé inc., Agence Solutions Santé, Gamma Personnel inc., Services de santé Alternacare inc., Micky services santé inc., Placement R.H. Quevillon, Focus médicale, Santérégie, Services de santé communautaire Sainte-Élisabeth, Services de santé Paraide international inc., Servir + Soins et Soutien à Domicile Inc., Soins Direct inc., Synervie inc. and Agence Vitale Santé inc. (Que.)
Labour law — Identification of true employer in tripartite relationship
In 2016 and 2017, Quebec’s Administrative Labour Tribunal (“ALT”) allowed four applications for judicial review in two administrative decisions in which it declared that certain groups of nursing professionals working at a number of hospitals through private agencies were employees within the meaning of the Labour Code, CQLR, c. C‑27, and were therefore included in the applicant union’s bargaining unit. According to the ALT’s interpretation, once an establishment is the sole care provider under the institutional framework established by statute, it assigns and oversees the work of the nursing professionals and, as a result, can only be their one true employer. The Superior Court set aside the decisions on the ground that they were unreasonable, and the Court of Appeal upheld that conclusion. In the Court of Appeal’s view, the ALT’s decision was unreasonable because its conclusions could not reasonably be supported by the legal framework invoked.
Volodomyr Hrabovskyy v. University of Montreal, France Houle, Alexandre Chabot, Steve McInnes, Guy Breton, Vincent Beauséjour, Louise-Hélène Richard, Frederik Asselin, Francis Gingras, Joanie Martineau, Jérôme Del Castillo (Que.)
Civil procedure — Appeals — Vexatious litigant
The applicant, Mr. Hrabovskyy, was a student at the University of Montréal. In 2019, he was expelled by the University Disciplinary Committee for having violated the University Disciplinary Regulations. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hrabovskyy filed a claim against the respondents for damages totaling upwards of $385 million and for other remedies. The Superior Court of Quebec granted the respondents’ motion to have Mr. Hrabovskyy declared a vexatious litigant, and dismissed his claim against the respondents. The Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed Mr. Hrabovskyy’s appeal.
Volodymyr Hrabovskyy v. Attorney General of Canada (Que.)
Civil procedure — Appeals — Vexatious litigant
The applicant, Mr. Hrabovskyy, filed a claim against the Attorney General of Canada (“AGC”) for damages totaling upwards of $4.5 billion. AGC applied to the Superior Court of Quebec to have Mr. Hrabovskyy declared a vexatious litigant. The application was granted, and the Court of Appeal of Quebec dismissed Mr. Hrabovskyy’s appeal.
Broccolini Construction Inc. / Construction Broccolini inc. v. Lambert Somec inc. (Que.)
Arbitration — Arbitration award — Homologation
On January 22, 2021, an arbitration award was issued with regard to claims made by the respondent, Lambert Somec inc. (“LSI”), against the applicant, Broccolini Construction Inc./Construction Broccolini inc. (“BCI”), a general contractor. LSI applied for the homologation of the arbitration award, while BCI sought to have it annulled, alleging a breach of the rules of natural justice.
The Superior Court allowed the application to homologate the arbitration award and dismissed the application to annul the award. In its view, the decisions made by the arbitrator and the references to certain documents in the award were not breaches of the rules of natural justice. The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the questions raised did not go sufficiently beyond the parties’ sole interests.