Fredrick Schumann

The applicants, animal rights activists, challenged the constitutionality of the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act and its Regulation.

They argued that provisions voiding consent to enter agricultural premises if obtained under false pretences, and provisions prohibiting interaction with farm animals, violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

The court found that the Act's prohibition on interacting with animals did not violate the Charter, as there is no constitutional right to physically interact with another's private property.

However, the court held that Section 9 of the Regulation, which penalized any false statement made to gain access to agricultural premises, unjustifiably infringed freedom of expression.

The court struck down Section 9 and certain limitations within the whistleblower and journalist exemptions, while upholding the rest of the Act.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant for damages after the tenant repudiated a commercial lease with eight years remaining.

The repudiation forced the plaintiff to sell the property, as it could not afford the carrying costs without the rental income and re-letting was unfeasible.

The defendants admitted liability but argued the plaintiff suffered no damages because the property was sold at fair market value.

The court rejected this argument, finding the forced sale was not at fair market value and did not compensate the plaintiff for the lost income stream and capital appreciation.

The court accepted the plaintiff's discounted cash flow analysis to quantify damages, using the 2015 appraised fair market value to account for foreseeable lost capital appreciation, and assuming reasonable mitigation through a hypothetical investment in a REIT basket.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions on sexual interference charges involving two children at his parent's home day care.

The appeal court found that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence of both complainants and the appellant.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to properly consider one child's adoption of prior inconsistent statements to police, overlooked evidence relevant to the other child's credibility, and mischaracterized the appellant's testimony without basis.

The appeal was allowed, with acquittals entered for the charges relating to one complainant and a new trial ordered for the charges relating to the other.