Breese Davies

The offender pleaded guilty to 72 counts of firearms and drug trafficking, having sold 60 firearms and 23kg of methamphetamine to undercover officers.

The court weighed the extreme seriousness of the offences, the offender's criminal record, and his role in a sophisticated operation against his guilty plea, rehabilitative efforts, and the unusually harsh conditions of his pre-sentence detention at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

A global sentence of 13 years was imposed, reduced from 14 years due to the oppressive conditions of detention.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from an intimate partner's fatal fall down a staircase, the sentencing judge determined the respondent was the aggressor, deliberately pushed the deceased during a prolonged altercation, and was not acting in self-defence, but the Crown did not prove an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm.

The court treated the offence as serious but closer to an accident than to murder, while identifying substantial aggravating features including the intimate relationship, a pattern of abusive conduct, the deceased's vulnerability from intoxication and illness, and the impact on family and friends.

Mitigating weight was given to the respondent's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, strong rehabilitative prospects, and more than two years on highly restrictive bail.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence of three and a half years, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and related firearms offences after the victim was shot six times inside an apartment.

The victim testified that the accused was not the shooter, but the court rejected this evidence as not credible.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including security video and forensic analysis, the court concluded the accused was the shooter.

The court found no air of reality to the accused's claim of self-defence and inferred an intent to kill from the fact that the accused shot the unarmed victim six times at close range.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing the victim multiple times during an altercation outside the Eaton Centre.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought two years.

The court weighed the serious violence and the offender's criminal record against mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, remorse, and elements of provocation and self-defence.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition, but waived the victim fine surcharge due to undue hardship.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, brought an application for judicial review to reduce his parole ineligibility period.

He brought a motion to permit witnesses employed by the Correctional Service of Canada and witnesses living outside Ontario to testify by video at the hearing.

The Crown consented.

The court granted the motion, finding it in the interests of justice under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code, as it would minimize time away from work, reduce costs, increase efficiency, and not prejudice the Crown.

During a trial for second degree murder, the Crown brought a motion to question its own witness in chief about an affidavit she filed in an unrelated criminal matter, in which she recanted allegations against her son-in-law.

The Crown sought to preemptively address an anticipated attack on the witness's credibility.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the collateral fact rule did not prohibit the questioning, the evidence was more prejudicial than probative as it was unrelated to the facts in dispute and would unduly distract the jury.

The offender was found guilty of three counts of trafficking methamphetamine and three counts of possessing property obtained by crime.

The Crown sought a 15-month custodial sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence, noting that a custodial sentence of 6 months or more would result in the loss of his right to appeal a deportation order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court found that the offender was a street-level dealer motivated by his own addiction, had no prior record, and posed a low risk to re-offend.

The court imposed a 21-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, including house arrest and a curfew, finding it satisfied the principles of denunciation and deterrence while allowing the offender to retain his right to appeal the removal order.

The accused was charged with three counts of aggravated assault following a stabbing incident in Bellevue Square Park.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification evidence from the victims and a bystander, including photo line-up identifications made nine months after the incident.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to the chaotic circumstances of the attack, inconsistencies in the witnesses' accounts, and the risk that their memories were tainted by police press releases and conversations with others.

The Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused, a 23-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and possessing 15.04 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the significant aggravating factors of the lethal nature of fentanyl and the presence of a loaded firearm in a public place, balanced against mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, rehabilitative prospects, experiences of anti-Black racism, and harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 3 years in custody for each offence, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The applicants applied to the Normal Farm Practice Protection Board regarding disturbances from the respondents' farm.

The Board dismissed the application and awarded costs against the applicants.

The applicants requested a review of the costs order only.

A vice-chair granted the review based on a reasonable apprehension of bias and ordered a new costs hearing.

Both parties appealed to the Divisional Court.

The respondents appealed the finding of bias, while the applicants argued the dismissal of the application should also have been overturned.

The Divisional Court quashed the respondents' appeal, finding the vice-chair's order was interlocutory.

The Court dismissed the applicants' appeal, holding the vice-chair did not err by only deciding the specific issue raised in the request for review.

The applicant, a legal assistant, sought judicial review of a decision denying her application for appointment as a non-lawyer notary public.

The Manager of Legal Appointments denied the application on the basis that the appointment was not necessary for the law firm's regular business, as the supervising lawyer was already a notary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the process was procedurally fair because the applicant had notice of the criteria.

The court also held that the decision was reasonable, as it aligned with the long-standing practice of limiting appointments to situations of strict necessity rather than mere expansion of services.

The appellant appealed an order removing him as director and CEO of a privately held technology company under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in finding his conduct oppressive, assessing the respondents' reasonable expectations, and ordering his removal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's factual findings or exercise of discretion.

The court upheld the removal of the appellant as a proportionate remedy to address the corporate dysfunction he caused.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.

The applicant, a community organization, sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision dismissing their request to reconsider a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment permitted a housing development for people leaving homelessness on a property already containing seniors' housing.

The applicant argued the development should be restricted to seniors leaving homelessness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable and consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, as restricting zoning by age would violate equality rights.

The Court also found no procedural unfairness despite inappropriate submissions by the respondent's counsel, though it denied costs to the successful respondent as a result.

The plaintiff, Toronto District School Board, brought an action in negligence and public nuisance against several major social media corporations, alleging that their products were intentionally designed to be addictive to children and caused widespread mental health and behavioral issues among students.

The Board claimed it suffered direct economic damages in responding to these student harms, including increased costs for mental health services, security, and staff training.

The defendant corporations brought a motion to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, allowing the Board's novel claims in negligence and public nuisance to proceed.

The applicants, an advocacy coalition and an individual, sought judicial review of the Minister of Long-Term Care's decision to grant a conditional undertaking to issue a licence for a new 320-bed long-term care home to Southbridge Care Homes.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable given the operator's poor record during the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged procedural unfairness during public consultations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing as the coalition was an unincorporated association without legal capacity and the individual lacked a genuine interest.

In the alternative, the court held the Minister's decision was reasonable and the consultation process was procedurally fair.

The respondent's counsel advised the court of a potential conflict of interest.

The applicants indicated they had no concerns and were content to proceed as scheduled.

Given the parties' positions, the panel directed that the matter would proceed as scheduled.

Following a fire in a residential complex, the landlords refused to allow tenants to return to their units despite the City of Sarnia clearing the units for occupancy.

The Landlord and Tenant Board found the landlords had illegally locked out the tenants, substantially interfered with their reasonable enjoyment, and engaged in harassment.

The Board awarded damages and imposed administrative fines totalling $525,000.

The landlords appealed and sought judicial review on several grounds, including procedural fairness, damages awards, and the quantum of the fines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and applications for judicial review, except for the issue of naming the principal of the corporate landlord as a 'landlord' personally, which was remitted to the Board due to a lack of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding she breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of a settlement agreement by posting about her human rights complaint on LinkedIn.

The Tribunal had ordered the applicant to repay the full settlement amount as liquidated damages and granted an anonymization order protecting the respondents' identities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the settlement agreement, its enforcement of the liquidated damages clause, and its decision to grant anonymization were all reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against her union.

The applicant alleged the union acted discriminatorily and arbitrarily by refusing to file an individual grievance regarding her bumping rights, opting instead for a policy grievance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's conclusions reasonable and holding that the Board did not breach procedural fairness by dismissing the complaint without an oral hearing.