Fredrick R. Schumann

The applicant, the Prime Minister of Canada, sought to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify at the criminal trial of the respondent, who was charged with assault with a weapon for throwing gravel at the applicant during a campaign event.

The court quashed the subpoena on three independent grounds: the respondent failed to show the applicant was likely to give material and necessary evidence; the subpoena was an abuse of process intended for political purposes rather than legal ones; and the applicant enjoyed absolute parliamentary privilege providing testimonial immunity while Parliament is in session.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract action on summary judgment.

The appellant claimed an ongoing oral contract required the respondent to make annual payments of $1.2 million in perpetuity.

The motion judge found no documentary evidence supporting the existence of such a contract and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appeal and the application for leave to appeal the costs award were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of two offences under the Customs Act and received a conditional discharge.

The summary conviction appeal judge set aside the sentence, finding the trial judge erred in law regarding the mens rea requirement.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the summary conviction appeal judge misapprehended the trial judge's comments, which were directed at whether the conduct was planned and deliberate for sentencing purposes, not mens rea.

The trial judge's sentence was restored, and a request for a Kienapple stay was declined.

The moving party, who was in significant default on two mortgages held by the responding party, sought an urgent stay of a writ of possession pending her appeal of a summary judgment order.

The Court of Appeal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion.

The court found no serious question to be determined, as the moving party admitted to substantial arrears and her arguments regarding technical defects in the eviction notice and lack of notice to her adult children under Rule 60.10(2) were without merit.

The court also found no irreparable harm and held that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the responding party, given the lack of payments for over four years.