Andrew J. Bradie

The accused sought a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, arguing the Crown improperly repudiated a plea agreement and disclosed the accused's intention to plead guilty to witnesses.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the Crown's conduct—the arbitrary repudiation of a judicially approved plea agreement without full inquiry and the premature disclosure of the plea to witnesses—deprived the accused of the right to a fair trial under s. 7 of the Charter.

Instead of a stay, the court ordered the enforcement of the original plea agreement as a just and appropriate remedy.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a young person, S.B., on a charge of sexual assault.

The Crown argued the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error of fact regarding the complainant's certainty that the accused heard her express non-consent, and erred in law or mixed fact and law by failing to establish the accused's knowledge of absence of consent.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons functionally adequate.

The court clarified that the trial judge did not make the factual findings attributed by the Crown, but rather expressed reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's credibility and the reliability of her evidence, particularly concerning inconsistencies in timing and the purpose of being at the location of the alleged assault.

The offender was sentenced after convictions for prolonged sexual exploitation and sexual assault of a highly vulnerable teenage complainant by her stepfather over more than a year.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay two sexual assault counts that overlapped with corresponding sexual exploitation counts, then held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code, particularly given the abuse of a person under 18 and abuse of a position of trust.

Relying on Ontario Court of Appeal authorities addressing prolonged sexual abuse by adults in authority, the court found a penitentiary term well above the minimum range was warranted but rejected the Crown's request for eight years as disproportionate on parity grounds.

A global concurrent sentence of six years was imposed, together with pre-sentence credit, lifetime sex offender registration, a DNA order, weapons prohibition, no-contact order, and victim surcharges.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) decision that ordered a new discipline hearing.

The OCPC had found that the Hearing Officer breached procedural fairness by failing to provide minimum assistance to the unrepresented public complainant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, upholding the OCPC's refusal to admit fresh affidavit evidence about off-the-record events.

The Court also rejected the applicant's argument that the complainant needed to prove actual prejudice, affirming that a breach of procedural fairness carries inherent prejudice and denies a meaningful role in the proceeding.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death after driving at extreme speed, consuming alcohol, and texting, resulting in a fatal collision with a motorcycle.

The court considered mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea, genuine remorse, youth, and lack of prior record, alongside aggravating factors such as the "trifecta" of dangerous driving (drinking, excessive speed, distracted driving) and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Emphasizing general deterrence as the predominant sentencing objective, the court analogized distracted driving causing death to impaired driving causing death, highlighting the voluntary nature of the risks involved.

The accused was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment, a 69-month driving prohibition, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused challenged the validity of search warrants and sought to exclude seized evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the first Information to Obtain (ITO) fatally defective due to a systemic practice of not swearing ITOs, and the second telewarrant invalid because the precondition of impracticability to appear in person was not met.

Considering the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct, including deliberate deception and systemic disregard for warrant procedures, the court excluded the firearm, shell casings, and surveillance equipment seized from the accused's residence.

The accused, Asser Omar Gayle, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and subsequent search, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sought to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The court found that the police lacked objective reasonable grounds for the arrest, thus breaching sections 9 and 8.

However, applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court balanced the seriousness of the state conduct (police acted in good faith but showed lack of professionalism in testimony), the impact on the accused's Charter interests (reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle, respectful treatment), and society's interest in adjudication on the merits (highly reliable evidence, exclusion would gut the Crown's case).

Ultimately, the court concluded that the factors favoring admission outweighed those favoring exclusion, and the evidence was admitted.

The appellant, an unrepresented public complainant, appealed the dismissal of disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer breached natural justice and procedural fairness by failing to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission agreed, finding that the Hearing Officer failed to provide the minimum level of assistance required for an unrepresented party, such as explaining the process, confirming his understanding, and inviting him to call or cross-examine witnesses.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was ordered.

The Amherstburg Police Service brought a motion to file three affidavits responding to allegations of breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness in a disciplinary proceeding.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the alleged breaches could be determined by reference to the record, making the affidavit evidence unnecessary and unfair.

The Commission also noted that it is improper for a Hearing Officer to swear an affidavit explaining their conduct after the fact.

The appellant in a police discipline appeal brought a motion to introduce an affidavit alleging prosecutorial incompetence and breaches of natural justice during the hearing.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the affidavit did not qualify as fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

Applying the Keeprite test, the Commission held that affidavit evidence to supplement the record is only admissible in rare circumstances where the alleged breach cannot be proven by reference to the record.

Because the appellant's allegations could be ascertained from the hearing transcripts, the affidavit was inadmissible.

The moving party brought a motion to strike portions of a Notice of Appeal and factums filed by a public complainant and the intervener.

The impugned portions alleged breaches of natural justice and prosecutorial incompetence during a police disciplinary hearing.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the statutory authority under the Police Services Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to strike pleadings that are clearly connected to the central issue of whether misconduct was proved on clear and convincing evidence.

The accused was tried on a charge of child luring arising from sexually explicit online communications with an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old boy who had responded to a Craigslist ad seeking a “young boy”.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony that he believed he was speaking to an adult posing as a teenager and that he never intended to facilitate an in-person sexual offence.

The court found that the wording of the ads, the accused’s conduct during the communications, his repeated re-initiation of contact, and the explicit discussion of possible meeting locations established beyond a reasonable doubt that he believed the person was under 16 and intended to facilitate a sexual offence.

The court relied on the interpretation of “facilitating” in s. 172.1 from R. v. Legare and entered a finding of guilt.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for sexually abusing a male student in 1974.

The member had previously been convicted of indecent assault under the Criminal Code for the same conduct and received a conditional sentence.

The Discipline Committee accepted the agreed statement of facts and joint submission on penalty, revoking the member's teaching certificate and ordering publication of the decision with the member's name to serve as a general deterrent.

The Member, a former teacher and principal, pled guilty to professional misconduct and sexual abuse of students following his criminal convictions for one count of sexual assault and sixteen counts of indecent assault against students between 1952 and 1986.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Committee ordered the revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and directed publication of the decision with the Member's name.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of a nightclub.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that a patron became drunk and was involved in an altercation resulting in injuries, breaching subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered an 18-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the respondent's liquor licence.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee employed minors, permitted them to serve and consume alcohol, failed to inspect identification, and allowed an underage employee to become intoxicated.

The Board accepted the Joint Submission on Disposition, suspending the liquor licence for 40 days and adding a condition restricting a specific individual's involvement in the premises.