Archie G. Campbell

The accused was charged with sexual assault against the complainant on November 25, 2023.

The Crown alleged that the accused forcibly sexually assaulted the complainant in a bathroom at the residence of a third party.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed the assault did not occur.

The trial proceeded on the basis of credibility assessments and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence, witness testimony regarding the complainant's immediate post-assault demeanor, and the accused's suspicious conduct and flight from the scene.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's testimony as internally and externally inconsistent, and found that the Crown proved all essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a judgment released on January 22, 2004, the parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The appellant sought costs of $6,778.50.

The respondent requested a no-costs order due to financial hardship but conceded the quantum was reasonable.

The Divisional Court found no reason to depart from the rule that costs follow the event and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant costs fixed at $6,778.50.

The appellants, developers of a residential subdivision, appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision requiring them to pay $568,391 as their proportionate share of municipal infrastructure costs previously front-ended by a neighbouring developer.

The appellants argued that the Development Charges Act, 1989 prohibited the imposition of such charges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while the Act prohibited imposing a charge by way of agreement, it did not prohibit the OMB from imposing the charge directly as a condition of draft plan approval under section 51(25) of the Planning Act to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of infrastructure costs.

The respondent's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesman was revoked due to odometer tampering.

He later re-applied for registration, but the Registrar proposed to refuse the application based on his past misconduct, including criminal fraud convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal restored his registration, accepting his argument that the fraud was due to bad paperwork and a dishonest employee.

The Registrar appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred fundamentally by allowing the respondent to relitigate the essential element of criminal intent from his fraud convictions.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was restored.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed a decision of the Human Rights Board of Inquiry finding that the Ministry failed to comply with a 1998 remedial order regarding a racially poisoned work environment.

The Board had ordered a human rights training program, which was not implemented within the required timeframe or in the approved manner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board had the supervisory jurisdiction to remain seized of the matter, hear evidence of continuing discrimination, and recast its original orders to ensure an effective remedy.

The appellant, a non-profit housing co-operative, appealed a decision dismissing its application to terminate the respondent's membership and occupancy rights.

The respondent was overhoused in a two-bedroom unit and had refused three offers to relocate to a one-bedroom unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the co-operative had complied with its by-laws and the Co-operative Corporations Act in terminating the membership of the respondent's former roommate and in requiring the respondent to downsize.

The court issued a declaration terminating the respondent's rights and granted a writ of possession.

The appellant, a mortgagee in possession, sought to terminate a fixed-term residential tenancy before the end of the term in order to sell the property.

The appellant served a 60-day notice of termination pursuant to the Mortgages Act and the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Tenant Protection Act's requirement that a fixed-term tenancy only be terminated at the end of the term prevailed over the Mortgages Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a mortgagee in possession cannot terminate a fixed-term tenancy prior to the end of the fixed term.

The Ontario Municipal Board stated a case to the Divisional Court asking whether an order issued after January 1, 2003, affirming or amending the City of Ottawa's ward boundary by-law, could be effective for the 2003 regular municipal elections.

The Ministry argued that ward boundaries cannot be changed after January 1 of an election year under the Municipal Act.

The Divisional Court held that the statutory restriction applied only to by-laws 'dividing' a municipality into wards, not 'redividing' them.

Therefore, the by-law redividing the wards could be effective for the upcoming election.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding actual damage to vehicles.

The Divisional Court rejected the proposed evidence, applying the Sengmueller test.

The court found the evidence was not relevant to the core issue of non-disclosure of acquisition documents, was readily available at the time of the original hearing, and would not have affected the tribunal's result.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act appealed a tribunal decision.

The Divisional Court adjourned the hearing, directing the parties to provide the complete record of the respondent's prior criminal appeal and written submissions on whether the tribunal impermissibly allowed a collateral attack on those criminal convictions.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Environmental Review Tribunal to quash one of their grounds of appeal.

The tribunal had previously granted leave to appeal a Director's order regarding nickel contamination in soil on only one of eight proposed grounds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the tribunal had the jurisdiction to limit the scope of the appeal to the ground on which leave was granted.

The court also held that the application was premature, as it challenged an interlocutory procedural decision, and that the tribunal's decision was reasonable.

The appellant tenant brought a motion to admit fresh evidence on appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence was readily available at the time of the original hearing and that the tenant had chosen not to call available witnesses.

Furthermore, the court held that the fresh evidence would not have been conclusive of the issue, applying the test from Sengmueller v. Sengmueller.

The appellant garnishee appealed two related Small Claims Court decisions regarding garnishment of debts owed to two debtors.

In the Ali matter, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the garnishee's representative had acknowledged the debt during informal proceedings, supporting the trial judge's implicit finding.

In the Seepersaud matter, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a rehearing, as there was no evidentiary basis or acknowledgement of a debt by the garnishee.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the sufficiency of settlement documents and compliance with regulations prior to the commencement of litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motions judge correctly applied established legal principles to uncontested facts and that the proposed appeal raised no question of general public importance.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The defendant appealed a Master's order dismissing an application to appoint a litigation guardian and brought a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the psychiatric evidence was vague and failed to establish a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs due to the defendant's history of procedural delay.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The applicant moved for a stay pending the hearing of his application for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the application was essentially an attempt to appeal on the facts, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and there was a four-month delay in bringing the application.

The appellant private school appealed a trial judgment awarding $8,800 in damages to the respondents for the expulsion of their eight-year-old daughter without notice or a hearing.

The school argued the trial judge based the decision on a breach of an implied contractual term of natural justice, which was not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations of procedural unfairness were central to the dispute from the beginning and were sufficiently pleaded in the context of a breach of fiduciary duty, meaning the school knew the case it had to meet.

The applicant, a non-custodial parent, sought access to his son's medical records through the Ontario Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of family or marital status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to usurp the Family Court's role in determining parental access rights.

The court found no discrimination and upheld the tribunal's procedural fairness, awarding $1,000 in costs to the Commission.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order and the subsequent refusal of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal to re-open a review hearing.

The tenant had failed to attend the initial review hearing because he was hospitalized for psychiatric care.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's refusal to consider the tenant's medical inability to attend constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Court extended the time to appeal the original order, set aside the order denying the review request, and ordered a rehearing.

The appellant appealed from a Master's order dismissing a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Master found the appellant moved in a reasonable time and had a potential defence, but lacked a plausible explanation for the default and that it was equitable to let the judgment stand.

The Divisional Court held that reasonable notice was required before default judgment was signed, given the overall settlement was a fresh step.

The appeal was allowed and the default judgment set aside, conditional on the appellant paying $3,000 in costs thrown away and paying $15,000 into court.