Andrea Esson

The Crown sought estreatment of a recognizance after the accused failed to appear in court while released on bail secured by a $5,000 recognizance consisting of a $2,500 cash deposit and a $2,500 no‑deposit pledge by a surety.

The surety had personally deposited the $2,500 cash but sought its return after attempting to be relieved as surety and reporting the accused’s breach to police.

The court considered the statutory framework governing recognizances and forfeiture under the Criminal Code and authorities addressing standing and ownership of bail deposits.

While recognizing that a surety may deposit bail money and may have standing to seek its return, the court held that in this case the recognizance and receipt clearly recorded the cash deposit in the accused’s name.

As a result, the deposit could not be returned to the surety and was forfeited upon the accused’s default.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of a handgun discovered in the trunk of a vehicle following a police stop.

Police officers testified they observed the accused place a firearm in the trunk before stopping the vehicle and conducting a search incident to arrest.

The court found significant credibility and reliability problems in the officers’ testimony, including material inconsistencies and implausible explanations, and concluded the Crown failed to establish that officers honestly believed they had seen a gun placed in the trunk.

The court held the search was unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter and the detention was arbitrary under s. 9.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined the serious Charter breaches and impact on the accused’s rights outweighed society’s interest in adjudication on the merits, and the firearm evidence was excluded.

The applicant, a lawyer formerly employed as an associate at the responding law firm, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

The applicant was summarily dismissed after a heated dispute with the managing partner over the firm's vacation pay policy, during which she acted insubordinately and refused to follow instructions.

The Adjudicator found that the applicant's conduct constituted wilful misconduct and disobedience that was not condoned by the employer.

Consequently, the employer was exempt from the obligation to provide notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof under section 57(10)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed decisions made by Ministry of Labour inspectors regarding work refusals and staffing assignments at the Whitby Jail under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The responding parties brought preliminary motions to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that they were premature and did not establish a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motions, finding that orders had been made or refused by the inspectors, and that the appellants had established an arguable case regarding the application of the Act to the staffing decisions.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which had struck down a reverse onus provision in the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, applying its recent decision in R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. The Court held that while the requirement for the accused to establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities restricts the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter, it is a justifiable limit under s. 1.

The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to dispose of the remaining grounds of appeal.

The complainants, three employees at a gypsum mine, refused to work after discovering that the mine's fire alarm system did not function during power failures, which were frequent.

The employer implemented a temporary contingency plan, but the complainants felt it was inadequate and continued to refuse work, leading to their suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the complainants had reasonable grounds to believe the workplace was unsafe and that the employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by disciplining them.

The Board ordered the employer to compensate the complainants for all losses suffered as a result of the suspensions.