Ani Mamikon

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a Master's decision allowing claims for damages by Vivian Bercovici against Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, to proceed.

The claims arose from Bercovici's dismissal as Canada's Ambassador to Israel and included intentional infliction of mental suffering and bad faith post-termination conduct.

The Master had dismissed the mental suffering claim but allowed the bad faith claim to proceed against Telford personally.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, found that under Ontario law, only employers can be liable for bad faith conduct committed by their employees within the scope of employment regarding employment contracts.

Consequently, the personal claim against Katie Telford for bad faith post-termination conduct was dismissed.

Leave was granted to Bercovici to amend her Statement of Claim to plead conduct beyond the scope of employment.

The appellant appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his habeas corpus application challenging the revocation of his day parole by the Parole Board of Canada.

The appellant had been released on day parole in April 2016 after serving a sentence for robbery and firearm offences, but his parole was revoked in April 2017 on the basis that he presented an undue risk to society.

The appellant contended he was detained during a parole disciplinary meeting without being informed of his right to counsel, contrary to section 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the appellant had been released on statutory release while the appeal was pending.

The court also set aside the costs order, finding that the habeas corpus application challenging parole revocation was criminal in nature rather than civil, and therefore costs could not be awarded.

The plaintiff, a former ambassador to Israel, commenced an action against the Attorney General of Canada by notice of action.

After the two-year limitation period expired, she attempted to add five individual government officials as defendants by naming them in her statement of claim.

The court held that adding parties requires a court order under Rule 5.04(2) and cannot be done simply by expanding the statement of claim.

The motion to add four of the defendants was dismissed as statute-barred.

The motion to add the fifth defendant, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, was allowed only in respect of a bad faith claim arising from post-termination conduct that occurred within the limitation period.

The court found the plaintiff failed to plead a tenable claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering against the fifth defendant.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's habeas corpus application, the respondent Attorney General sought costs of $15,951.78.

The court noted that while costs can be awarded in habeas corpus applications relating to the administration of a lawful sentence, they must not become a roadblock to accessing the writ.

Given that the application required additional work due to the applicant's request for an adjournment to file further materials, the court fixed costs at $6,000 all inclusive.

Mr. Samuel sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, alleging a Charter s. 10 violation when his day parole was suspended and he was detained without being advised of his rights or given counsel.

The Attorney General of Canada challenged the Superior Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) provides a complete, comprehensive, and expert procedure for parole review, including judicial review by the Federal Court.

The court, bound by prior Ontario Court of Appeal decisions, found that the CCRA scheme, including Federal Court judicial review, constitutes such a procedure, falling within the exception articulated in May v. Ferndale Institution.

Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to decline habeas corpus jurisdiction, dismissing the application.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault by Justice G. King of the Superior Court of Justice on May 4, 2015.

On appeal, the Crown conceded that the trial judge committed reversible error in his application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Court of Appeal agreed with this concession and found reversible error.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the sexual assault charge.

The appellant's application to introduce fresh evidence regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed as moot.

The defendants brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents, seeking the plaintiff's complete corporate tax returns and financial statements from 2006 to 2012.

The underlying action involved claims for breach of contract and lost opportunity related to two government requests for proposals.

The court found the request for tax returns overbroad and irrelevant, as the plaintiff was not claiming general lost income.

However, the court ordered the production of corporate records relating to the distribution of shares to individuals who worked on the proposals, as the plaintiff claimed it paid workers in shares due to lost profits.

Success being divided, no costs were ordered.