The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50225
Law Times • June 27, 2011 that British Columbia Supreme Court would retain exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any fu- ture changes to current orders for custody and access. Order staying motion to change sub- ject to right of mother to bring motion to remove stay if she was able to vary consent order in British Columbia so as to rescind condition that limited ability to have matter addressed elsewhere. Both Ontario and British Columbia have jurisdic- tion to hear and determine vari- ation application. Both former spouses accepted jurisdiction of British Columbia when con- sent order made in 2008. Ma- jor stumbling block to Ontario exercising jurisdiction was con- sent order entered into less than three years earlier. Having that provision in place regardless of how long child resident in On- tario makes no sense. Court would not assume jurisdiction at this juncture but would not dismiss mother's application. Lieberman v. Harari (Apr. 14, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Walters J., File No. 892/10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 759 (8 pp.). Motor Vehicles USED CAR DEALERS Fact criminal charges were laid irrelevant to determination tribunal was required to make Appellant was charged crimi- nally with four counts of pos- session of property obtained by crime relating to four stolen motor vehicles found by po- lice on premises of dealership. Tribunal directed registrar to carry out registrar's proposal to revoke appellant's dealer regis- tration. Tribunal found appel- lant wilfully blind with respect to stolen property. Appellant was convicted of operating mo- tor vehicle with no insurance, use of dealer plate and failure to surrender permit. Charges were subsequently withdrawn. Appeal was dismissed. Fact criminal charges were laid was irrelevant to determination tri- bunal was required to make. Substance of decision law in fi nding of wilful blindness and Highway Traffi c Act (Ont.), convictions. Only part of vid- eos not confi rmed by testimony of police offi cer's personal ob- servations and evidence of ap- pellant related to disposal of personal property from vehicles which had no impact on result. Omoregie v. Ontario (Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, Registrar) (Mar. 21, 2011, Ont. S.C.J. (Div. Ct.), Ferrier, Lederer and Lauwers JJ., File No. 496/10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 867 (7 pp.). Real Property LAND TITLES Director of Titles responsible for determining any matter relating to titles of land including determination of absolute title Motion by plaintiff for partial summary judgment for decla- ration that defendant had no interest in property, expunging defendant's objection to appli- cation for absolute title and for declaration that plaintiff has absolute title to land. Declara- tion that defendant has not title or interest in land or order that objection to application for ab- solute title is expunged. Motion for declaration that plaintiff has absolute title to land dismissed. Court had no jurisdiction to grant absolute title. Plaintiff must proceed before Director of Titles for that declaration. Defendant's objection to ap- plication for absolute title not based on any interest he has in property but rather on interest City or Crown had. Land Titles Act (Ont.), and regulations contemplate objections based on objector's claim of an inter- est in land. Objection to use that plaintiff was going to make of land not a valid objection to application for absolute title. Permissive language in s. 46(2) of Act does not give landowner choice of venues in which to make application for absolute title but simply provides land- owner with opportunity to make application if landowner wishes. Director of Titles re- sponsible for determining any matter relating to titles of land including determination of ab- solute title. Zanini v. Wadon (Apr. 6, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Corrick J., File No. CV-10-407716) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 879 (6 pp.). FEDERAL COURT Aboriginal Peoples CROWN RELATIONSHIP No link between appointment of third party manager and native self-government Minister appointed third party manager because of band's de- fault under Comprehensive Funding Arrangement ("CFA"). Minister's staff met with band offi cials and warned of problems forthcoming. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Th ere was no issue band was not in default of CFA. Th ere was no link between appointment of third party manager and native self-government. Even if there were duty to consult, it would be at low end of consultation spectrum because strength of claim to aboriginal rights was weak and potential adverse ef- fect was temporary. Minister's decision was reasonable balanc- ing of duties to which Minister was subject. Kehewin Cree Nation v. Canada (Mar. 24, 2011, F.C., Phelan J., File No. T-677-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 612 (11 pp.). Courts JURISDICTION No merit to delay argument as jurisdiction could be raised at any time. Motion by defendant to strike statement of claim. Defendant argued Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to hear private con- tractual dispute, which had to be resolved by provincial law. Dispute concerned purported transfer of lands on Mohawk reserve from plaintiff to defen- dant. Title to lands was held CASELAW by Crown on behalf of band. Plaintiff alleged defendant oc- cupied land under rental agree- ment and agreed to purchase lands for $350,000 but then re- siled and refused to pay. Th ird party Minister declined to give legal eff ect to transfer. Plain- tiff argued defendant's motion should be dismissed because he delayed too long in bringing it. Motion dismissed. No merit to delay argument as jurisdiction could be raised at any time. Central aspects of plaintiff 's claim turned on federal law, es- pecially the Indian Act (Can.). Band custom and federal com- mon law were more likely than the Civil Code of Quebec. It was not plain and obvious that the court lacked jurisdiction. Robertson v. Beauvais (Mar. 29, 2011, F.C., Barnes J., File No. T-1236-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 710 (8 pp.). Crown ARMED FORCES Applicant had benefit of full, fair, and independent de novo review by Chief of Defence Staff Applicant was permanently re- moved as base commander and served with recorded warning. Initial decision to remove ap- plicant from command was tainted by procedural unfair- ness. Determination of griev- ance by Chief of Defence Staff ("CDS") also removed appli- cant from command. Applicant sought judicial review arguing subsequent determination of grievance was compromised by underlying procedural unfair- ness and should be set aside. Application was dismissed. CDS conducted de novo re- view of grievance. Process was not compromised in any way by procedural defi ciencies iden- tifi ed in underlying process. CDS understood need to come to independent conclusion con- cerning applicant's fi tness for command on basis of record before CDS. Applicant could not complain about inadequacy of substantive grievance record before GDS when applicant failed to make eff ort to shape it. Applicant had benefi t of full, fair, and independent de novo review by CDS that was suffi - cient to remedy defi ciencies that arose at time of initial decision. Schmidt v. Canada (Attorney General) (Mar. 23, 2011, F.C., Barnes J., File No. T-883-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 715 (18 pp.). Immigration REFUGEE STATUS If officer concerned about provenance of letters on Hezbollah letterhead and accuracy of translation, he should have put these issues to applicant at hearing Application for judicial review of denial of refugee status. Ap- plicant was citizen of Lebanon whose husband was murdered by Hezbollah in 1984, alleg- edly for his pro-Israeli beliefs. Applicant's refugee claim was dismissed in 2000 and her Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") was dismissed in 2010. On her PRRA applica- www.lawtimesnews.com tion applicant presented two letters as new evidence. One letter was not on letterhead but was signed by Secretariat Gen- eral of Hezbollah in 2003, stat- ing that applicant and two sons were facing legal and religious prosecution for opposing Hez- bollah's principles and ideology and for not participating in Al Jihad to fi ght Israeli/Zionist en- emy in South Lebanon. Second letter was on Hezbollah letter- head but was undated stated applicant had been condemned to death for co-operating with Israelis and she was considered traitor to country. Offi cer as- signed minimal weight to let- ters and concluded that while Hezbollah continued to be a threat there was insuffi cient evi- dence that she faced more than mere possibility of persecution should she be returned to Leba- non. Application granted. One cannot give minimal weight to death sentence. If so-called Hez- bollah documents were legiti- mate applicant would clearly be at risk. Th erefore this decision turned on credibility issue, not insuffi ciency of evidence issue. If offi cer was concerned about provenance of letters and ac- curacy of one of translations he should have put these issues to applicant at hearing. In result, decision is both unreasonable and procedurally unfair. Hamadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Mar. 16, 2011, F.C., Har- rington J., File No. IMM-2036- 10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 826 (7 pp.). PAGE 15 SELECTION AND ADMISSION Failure to render decision on permanent residence application within seven years was unreasonable Application for judicial re- view of refusal of application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compas- sionate ("H&C") grounds. Applicant, who was citizen of China, made H&C applica- tion December 15, 2003. De- cision rejecting application was made August 4, 2010. In inter- vening seven years, applicant became fi rmly established in Canada. At no time following applicant's arrival in Canada was move made to remove her from Canada. In rejecting ap- plication, offi cer concluded that applicant knew she did not have legal status after refu- gee application was rejected in 1997 and that she chose to remain in Canada at her own risk. Application granted. Re- spondent's failure to render de- cision on permanent residence application within seven years was unreasonable. Applicant put down roots in Canada and in reaching reasonable deci- sion offi cer was required to make realistic and empathetic decision with respect to appli- cant's establishment. Decision rendered did not meet this rea- sonable expectation. Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citi- zenship and Immigration) (Mar. 16, 2011, F.C., Campbell J., File No. IMM-4829-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 841 (5 pp.). When More is Too Much Starting from $62.50 per month Irrelevant cases chewing up your research time? Get the best cases first. There's no bones about it. BestCase not only has a comprehensive collection of unreported decisions, but our diamond image helps you quickly find decisions selected by experts to identify the most relevant cases first. BestCase is the only online source for Canada's leading law reports including: • Canadian Criminal Cases – since 1898 • Dominion Law Reports – since 1912 • Labour Arbitration Cases – since 1948 ... plus others! • Renowned case summaries • Case citator It also contains case law you won't find anywhere else. You can print or download PDFs of both reported and unreported decisions – no photocopying required. BestCase allows you to track research, generate reports and manage your passwords using the Disbursement Manager. Contact your Account Manager to compare BestCase to your current research services! www.canadalawbook.ca a Thomson Reuters business