Nicolas M. Rouleau

The appellant appealed the Indian Registrar's decision refusing to register him as an "Indian" under the Indian Act, arguing his ancestors were entitled to registration under the 1868 Indian Act.

The appellant also sought a declaration that s. 6 of the Indian Act breached s. 15 of the Charter by discriminating based on ancestry.

The Superior Court dismissed both the appeal and the application.

The Court found the Registrar correctly interpreted the 1868 Indian Act as applying only to those alive at the time and requiring a repute of belonging to a specific tribe or band, which the appellant's ancestors lacked.

The Court also held that "ancestry status" is not an analogous ground under s. 15 of the Charter and there was no evidence of historical disadvantage or discrimination based on that ground.

On a motion for leave to intervene in a pending constitutional challenge to the mental-illness exclusion from medical assistance in dying, the court granted leave to four public-interest interveners to participate in an urgent July motion seeking individual constitutional relief under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Applying Rule 13.02 and the generous constitutional intervention framework, the court found each proposed intervener had a sufficient interest, distinct perspective, or recognized expertise capable of assisting the court.

The court held it was premature to determine intervention in the underlying application because the evidentiary record was incomplete and additional intervener requests might follow.

Strict limits were imposed: no new evidence, no new issues, no submissions on the individual applicant’s personal circumstances, and no costs.

The parties married in Belgium and moved to Ontario shortly before separating.

The appellant husband initiated divorce proceedings in Belgium, while the respondent wife initiated proceedings in Ontario, including claims for property equalization.

The Belgian court ruled it had jurisdiction over the liquidation of the matrimonial regime but not the divorce itself.

The appellant brought a motion in Ontario arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the property claims or, alternatively, that Belgium was the clearly more appropriate forum (forum non conveniens).

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario had jurisdiction and that the appellant failed to show Belgium was the clearly more appropriate forum, especially given the risk of multiplicity of proceedings if the property claims were split from the divorce and support claims.

The appellants sought to overturn Tribunal decisions refusing production of documents for abuse of process stay motions and denying a stay of securities enforcement proceedings arising from unlawful disclosure of compelled examination evidence in related receivership proceedings.

Applying appellate standards of review and the abuse of process framework, the court held that the Tribunal did not err in requiring a threshold showing for disclosure, in refusing to adopt the criminal-law summary dismissal threshold from Haevischer, or in concluding there was no tenable abuse of process case warranting disclosure.

The court further held that the unlawful disclosure, while serious, did not establish prejudice to trial fairness or to the integrity of the justice system that would be manifested, perpetuated, or aggravated by continuing the enforcement hearing, and that the grave public interest in adjudicating the securities fraud allegations strongly weighed against a stay.

One sanction issue succeeded only to correct the joint and several disgorgement amount from $2 million to $1.965 million.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Canada's federal electoral system under sections 3 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They argued that the Single Member Plurality (SMP) system violates the right to vote by creating disproportionality between votes cast and seats won, and violates equality rights by underrepresenting women, racial minorities, and small political parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the electoral system does not infringe either section 3 or section 15 of the Charter.

The court found that the right to vote is a right to participate in the electoral process, not a right to have votes translated into representation in any particular manner.

Electoral outcomes resulting from citizens' free choices cannot violate constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Crown's appeal from a directed verdict of acquittal for Abdullahi Osman, who was charged as an accessory after the fact to murder.

The court held that, although attempted murder can in rare cases be an included offence to murder, there was no air of reality to the included offence of being an accessory after the fact to attempted murder in this case, as the evidence was clear that the principal's acts caused the victim's death.

The decision clarifies the law on included offences, the requirements for accessory after the fact liability, and the rare circumstances in which attempted murder may be left to a jury as an included offence where the victim dies.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the Ontario Court of Justice on the basis of delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court found that the total delay was well within the Jordan ceiling and that the defence had not taken meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings.

The trial judge below erred in focusing on police delay in video disclosure and in treating the absence of a fully unredacted video as a bar to progress.

The appeal was allowed, the stay was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial scheduling.

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021, arguing it was ultra vires Ontario and infringed their rights to free expression and equality under the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Act, finding its dominant purpose was to affirm and commemorate the Tamil-Ontarian community's experience, which falls within Ontario's power over local matters under s. 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court also dismissed the Charter claims, concluding the Act does not suppress expression or draw a discriminatory distinction against Sinhala-Buddhists.

This endorsement addresses thirteen motions for leave to intervene in an appeal challenging the constitutionality of Canada's single member plurality (SMP) electoral system under sections 3 and 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court applied the test for leave to intervene, emphasizing the requirement for a useful and distinct contribution without causing duplication or unfairness.

Six motions were granted, including those from groups offering unique perspectives on Indigenous representation, international law, constitutional status of SMP, and substantive equality.

Seven motions were dismissed for largely duplicating the appellants' arguments.

The applicant, Fair Change, brought a constitutional challenge against sections 2, 3, and 5 of the Safe Streets Act, 1999, arguing they violate several Charter rights.

The court granted Fair Change public interest standing.

The court found that the deeming provisions in paragraphs 2(3)2 to 6 of the Act violate the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) and freedom of expression under s. 2(b), and are not saved by s. 1.

The court also found that the blanket prohibitions on solicitation in certain places under clauses 3(2)(a) to (e) violate freedom of expression and are not minimally impairing, thus not saved by s. 1.

However, the court upheld the prohibition on aggressive solicitation in s. 2(2) and the prohibition on squeegeeing in s. 3(2)(f) as justified limits on freedom of expression.

The court dismissed the challenges under ss. 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The unconstitutional provisions were declared of no force and effect.

The applicants sought to strike down sections 2(1), 24(1), and 313(1) of the Canada Elections Act, arguing they infringed sections 3 (right to vote) and 15(1) (equality rights) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The challenge contended that Canada's single member plurality (SMP) electoral system resulted in disproportionate translation of votes to seats and underrepresentation of small national parties, women, and racial minorities.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the SMP system is constitutionally valid, does not violate Charter rights, and that the Constitution does not mandate proportional representation.

The court emphasized that voting rights focus on electoral process, not specific outcomes, and that political affiliation is not an analogous ground for discrimination under section 15.

Robert Vanier, former CEO of Onco Petroleum Inc., appealed his conviction for publishing a false prospectus under s. 400 of the Criminal Code, for which he received an 8-year sentence.

The false prospectus misrepresented the company's liquid funds.

Vanier, self-represented at trial, raised several grounds of appeal, including trial unfairness (denial of a Rowbotham application, inadequate preparation assistance, language issues, and evidence presentation), errors in jury instructions (distinction between motive and intent, witness credibility), and the admissibility of evidence found on an abandoned hard drive (Charter s. 8).

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge relied on unproven aggravating factors and failed to deduct pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no errors by the trial judge regarding trial fairness, jury instructions, or the s. 8 Charter analysis.

The court also found no error in the sentence, affirming that the trial judge's assessment of aggravating factors was appropriate and that pre-sentence custody deductions were not warranted as Vanier was incarcerated for a separate conviction.

Robert Vanier was convicted of two counts of perjury for making false statements under oath in Personal Information Forms (PIFs) submitted to the TSX and CNQ exchanges.

He appealed, arguing that s. 131 of the Criminal Code did not apply because the statements were not "permitted, authorized, or required by law" to be made under oath, and that he should have been charged under s. 134.

He also claimed a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statements were indeed permitted by law as they stemmed from the Securities Act and the exchanges' regulatory powers, and that there was no unreasonable delay.

This endorsement addresses motions for leave to intervene in a constitutional challenge brought by Fair Voting BC and Springtide Collective for Democracy Society against the Attorney General of Canada.

The challenge concerns the constitutionality of the 'first-past-the-post' electoral system under the Canada Elections Act, alleging violations of ss. 3 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Four organizations—Apathy is Boring (AIB), Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), Electoral Reform Society (UK) (ERS UK), and Fair Vote Canada (FVC)—sought leave to intervene.

The court granted leave to all four to intervene as friends of the court, allowing them to file factums and make time-limited oral submissions.

However, the court denied ERS UK's request to intervene as an added party and prohibited all interveners from filing additional evidence, emphasizing the existing substantial record and the risk of delay and prejudice to the parties.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault arising from events that occurred after he and the complainant separated from a group during an early morning walk following a party.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on neutral circumstantial evidence as confirmatory, and engaged in uneven scrutiny when assessing the parties’ credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge carefully considered inconsistencies in the complainant’s evolving accounts and appropriately relied on corroborating medical and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence and observations of the complainant’s physical condition after the incident.

The court concluded that the trial judge’s credibility findings were reasonably supported by the evidence and disclosed no reversible error.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The applicants, representing members of Ontario's Sinhalese diaspora, brought applications challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021.

They argued the Act was ultra vires the province and violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the Act is in pith and substance related to education, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The court further held that the Act does not restrict freedom of expression, nor does it create a discriminatory distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds.

This endorsement addresses motions by the Tamil Rights Group (TRG) and the Tamil Coalition (National Council of Canadian Tamils, Canadian Tamil Academy, Canadian Tamil Youth Alliance) to intervene as parties or friends of the court in two joined applications.

The original applicants are challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, alleging it is ultra vires and violates Charter rights.

The court granted intervener status as parties to TRG and the Tamil Coalition, finding their contributions useful for a balanced factual record, particularly given the applicants' factual assertions about the Act's basis.

The court imposed specific limitations on the interveners' participation to avoid undue delay or prejudice.

The respondents brought a motion to strike an application for judicial review of the Prime Minister's decision to advise the Governor General to call the 2021 election.

The applicants alleged the Prime Minister violated section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act.

The Federal Court granted the motion to strike, concluding the application was bereft of any possibility of success because the Federal Court of Appeal previously decided in Conacher that section 56.1 does not constrain the Prime Minister's ability to advise the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.

The appellant, a permanent resident, appealed his robbery convictions, arguing his guilty pleas were uninformed due to misadvice from trial counsel regarding immigration consequences.

He was led to believe that sentences under two years per count would provide a "fighting chance" from an immigration perspective, when in fact, sentences over six months rendered him inadmissible with no right to appeal a removal order.

Applying the test from R. v. Wong, the Court of Appeal found the pleas uninformed and that the appellant suffered subjective prejudice, as he would have opted for a trial or different conditions had he been properly advised.

The convictions were set aside, a new trial ordered, and further proceedings were stayed in the public interest given the served sentences, lack of re-offending, and court resource pressures.

The appellant, Carlos Pavao, appealed his convictions for fraud and his sentence.

He was convicted of defrauding ten investors and the public through the sale of non-existent shares in gold mining companies.

His appeal of conviction was based on alleged misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge and a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence and that the delay was justified under the Morin transitional exception.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the restitution and fine orders by $45,000, as these amounts related to individuals who were not named complainants in the indictment.