Alan W. Bryant

The applicant sought Charter relief arising from a brief roadside stop during a police search for escaped youths.

The court held the officers had articulable cause to stop the truck to determine whether its occupants were the missing youths, and that the detention was justified under the common law investigative detention power.

After the officers observed the driver switch seats with a rear passenger, the court found there were fresh grounds for a regulatory detention and licence inquiry under the Highway Traffic Act.

Although the Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach and abandoned reliance on the applicant's admission, the application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against a six-year-old complainant whom he babysat in 2006.

The trial, held years later when the complainant was 13, centered on credibility and reliability.

The complainant testified that the accused licked her vaginal area, while the accused denied the incident occurred and suggested she was malicious and untruthful.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the trial judge found the complainant's evidence straightforward and reliable despite minor memory lapses on collateral matters, and rejected the accused's evidence.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Sentencing decision for leaving the scene of an accident causing death under s. 252(1.3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offender struck a pedestrian who was jogging in the roadway and immediately fled the scene without providing assistance, later falsely claiming he had hit a deer.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount sentencing principles for hit-and-run offences, particularly where the driver leaves an injured person without determining whether assistance is required.

Although the offender pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, and had a minimal criminal record, the court held that a custodial sentence was necessary.

A five‑month custodial sentence followed by two years’ probation with community service was imposed.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action against a municipality after stepping into a crack or pothole in a municipal parking stall and sustaining a knee injury.

The municipality argued that it met the regulatory minimum maintenance standards for municipal highways and that the roadway was intended primarily for vehicular traffic.

The court held that where a municipality creates designated parking stalls, it is reasonably foreseeable that pedestrians will walk between parked vehicles to access the curb and sidewalk.

The municipality failed to prove it complied with inspection requirements under the Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways and failed to inspect the area used by pedestrians.

The longitudinal pothole created an unreasonable risk of harm and the municipality was found liable.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence action arising from the death of a resident at a group home.

The plaintiff commenced the claim more than two years after the death and argued that the limitation period under s. 38(3) of the Trustee Act was tolled due to incapacity and fraudulent concealment.

The court held that the plaintiff produced no medical evidence establishing incapacity under s. 7 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not apply because there was no evidence the defendant concealed material facts about the death.

As the underlying claim was statute‑barred, the derivative claim under s. 61 of the Family Law Act was also barred.

The Crown appealed a provincial court sentencing decision where the trial judge rejected a joint submission for a peace bond and mental health diversion program and instead imposed a conditional discharge with probation.

The appeal court held that the sentencing judge improperly rejected the joint submission without finding it contrary to the public interest or bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court further found that the mandatory requirements of the Criminal Code governing pleas were not followed, as the information was not read to the accused and no plea was entered.

The appeal court concluded that the lower court failed to comply with statutory plea procedures and improperly imposed sentence.

The finding of guilt and conditional discharge were quashed and the joint submission for a peace bond and diversion was implemented.

In a personal injury action arising from a helicopter crash, the defendants brought several pre‑trial discovery and procedural motions shortly before trial.

The court ordered production of corporate income tax records relating to the plaintiff’s production company, confirmation from the plaintiff’s accountant regarding the production of corporate records, authorization for defence counsel to obtain contractual records relating to the plaintiff’s involvement with a film production, and permitted questioning regarding the plaintiff’s OHIP records.

However, the court refused the defendants’ request for a late independent medical examination by a neurologist, finding the request was not based on new issues and would likely delay the scheduled trial.

Costs submissions were permitted if the parties could not agree.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision arising from a dispute with a telecommunications provider over billing following the cancellation of bundled services.

The deputy judge had found the provider’s billing communications confusing and its collection letters aggressive, but concluded the plaintiff failed to prove financial loss caused by the billing practices.

Nominal damages of $200 were awarded for mailing costs and the time spent addressing the collection efforts, together with modest costs.

On appeal, the court confirmed that jurisdiction existed because the amount claimed in the action exceeded the statutory threshold under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found no reversible error in the deputy judge’s findings or the costs disposition and dismissed both the appeal and the cross‑appeal.

The accused was charged with possession and making available child pornography after police found illicit images on his computer, which was running the LimeWire peer-to-peer file sharing program.

The accused pled guilty to possession but contested the making available charges, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea.

The court found that the accused had limited technical knowledge, did not know deleted images were saved, and took active steps to prevent file sharing once he learned of the risk.

The court rejected the Crown's argument of wilful blindness and acquitted the accused of making available child pornography.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay in completing his bail hearing, alleging violations of ss. 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused argued that the justice of the peace and Crown prosecutor caused an unlawful adjournment exceeding the three‑day limit under s. 516 of the Criminal Code and demonstrated disregard for the accused’s liberty interests.

The court held that defence counsel consented to the adjournment and therefore no illegal adjournment occurred.

The court further found that neither the Crown prosecutor nor the justice of the peace acted improperly or breached the accused’s Charter rights.

Although the 32‑day duration of the bail hearing was unacceptable, it did not justify the extraordinary remedy of a stay of proceedings.

The defendant architect brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence action arising from alleged design defects in a residential building.

The plaintiff argued the defect was not discoverable until a precast concrete unit fell from the building in 2008 and that the claim was therefore timely under the discoverability principle.

The court held that the architectural services agreement contained a contractual limitation clause providing that the architect’s liability ceased six years after substantial performance of the work or another specified triggering event, whichever occurred first.

Substantial performance occurred in 1994 and the action commenced in 2009, well beyond the contractually agreed limitation period.

The court found the clause clear, enforceable, and properly brought to the plaintiff’s attention, and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The applicant brought a constitutional challenge to s. 753(1.1) of the Criminal Code, which creates a rebuttable presumption that an offender is a dangerous offender where certain predicate convictions exist.

The provision shifts the burden to the offender to disprove dangerous offender criteria on a balance of probabilities once the Crown proves specified prior convictions.

The court held that the reverse onus violates s. 7 of the Charter because it requires an offender to disprove aggravating sentencing factors that traditionally must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Applying the Oakes test, the court found the provision was not rationally connected to the legislative objective and did not minimally impair Charter rights.

The provision was declared of no force and effect.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs against the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to order the costs payable on a joint and several basis, instead directing that each respondent tenant pay an equal share of the total costs award.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.

On an application to pass estate accounts for the period when Marian Barltrop acted as guardian of property for Ethel Baker, the court considered extensive objections from Robert Baker concerning alleged deficiencies, overpayments, and reimbursements.

The court found the records were complete, accepted that identified duplicate and overpayments were bookkeeping errors rather than fiduciary breaches, and reduced compensation for those specific amounts.

The court held that challenged reimbursements, including care-related payments, legal and travel expenses, and other administration costs, were reasonably incurred for Ethel Baker’s benefit in the circumstances.

The accounts were passed, with a limited adjustment to compensation and a timetable set for costs submissions.

On a summary judgment motion in long-running drainage litigation, the moving defendants sought dismissal on limitation grounds and substantial indemnity costs.

The responding plaintiffs opposed and sought related procedural relief, including amendment of pleadings to particularize nuisance and to plead discoverability and fraudulent concealment.

The court held that the record disclosed multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, including disputed facts regarding design, construction, disclosure obligations, and the interaction of potentially applicable statutory limitation regimes.

Summary judgment was dismissed, leave to further amend the amended statement of claim was granted, and the matter was directed to proceed expeditiously toward trial.

The applicant sought a declaration that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to interpret certain oil and gas storage leases, arguing that the Ontario Energy Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, finding that because the Board had not yet made an order designating the proposed storage areas or authorizing gas injection under the Ontario Energy Board Act, the substance of the claim did not fall within the Board's exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court retained jurisdiction to interpret the leases.

The Attorney General applied for forfeiture of $5,545 seized during a drug investigation under the Civil Remedies Act.

The respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the supporting affidavit that referred to his criminal record and past drug-related activity, arguing it was inadmissible propensity evidence.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The respondent appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that similar fact evidence of bad character is admissible in civil forfeiture proceedings where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, as it is relevant to whether the seized money is proceeds of unlawful activity.

The appellant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and sexual abuse suffered at a training school as a youth.

The Board denied compensation, taking into account the appellant's subsequent criminal behaviour, including a conviction for rape.

The appellant appealed, arguing that subsequent conduct should not be considered under section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's broad discretion to consider 'all relevant circumstances' includes the claimant's subsequent criminal conduct.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Liquor License Board finding violations of the Liquor License Act for permitting drunkenness and allowing alcohol to be removed from the premises, as well as the resulting 10-day license suspension and added conditions.

The appellant argued denial of natural justice due to delayed disclosure, improper limits on cross-examination, and the Board's treatment of an inspector's evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of natural justice as the appellant had immediate notice of the infractions, and holding that the Board properly assessed the inspector's observational evidence.

The global sanction was also upheld.