Brian H. Greenspan

In an extradition proceeding, the court reviewed the unredacted Information to Obtain (ITO) and redacted audio/visual recordings to determine if the redactions were justified.

The court found that the redactions fell within the ambit of public interest privilege, as they were necessary to protect an ongoing police investigation and public safety.

The court ruled that the Attorney General of Canada had satisfied its disclosure obligations and ordered the unredacted ITO to be held under seal.

The applicant, charged with impaired and dangerous operation causing death and bodily harm following a boating accident, sought a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process.

The Crown had preferred a direct indictment after a preliminary inquiry had been scheduled.

The applicant argued this was done for an oblique motive to deprive him of discovery.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the notoriously high evidentiary threshold required to displace the presumption that the Crown exercised its core prosecutorial discretion in good faith.

In an extradition proceeding concerning a drug trafficking conspiracy, both the Attorney General of Canada and the respondents brought applications regarding the disclosure of materials related to a confidential witness.

The respondents sought the identity of the witness, unredacted copies of the Information to Obtain (ITO), and audio/video recordings of a meeting.

The Attorney General sought to vary a previous order requiring production of the recordings, citing the witness's consent and public interest privilege.

The court denied the request for the witness's identity due to safety concerns but ordered the Attorney General to submit the edited recordings and an unredacted ITO with a judicial summary to the court for review.

The appellants sought to overturn Tribunal decisions refusing production of documents for abuse of process stay motions and denying a stay of securities enforcement proceedings arising from unlawful disclosure of compelled examination evidence in related receivership proceedings.

Applying appellate standards of review and the abuse of process framework, the court held that the Tribunal did not err in requiring a threshold showing for disclosure, in refusing to adopt the criminal-law summary dismissal threshold from Haevischer, or in concluding there was no tenable abuse of process case warranting disclosure.

The court further held that the unlawful disclosure, while serious, did not establish prejudice to trial fairness or to the integrity of the justice system that would be manifested, perpetuated, or aggravated by continuing the enforcement hearing, and that the grave public interest in adjudicating the securities fraud allegations strongly weighed against a stay.

One sanction issue succeeded only to correct the joint and several disgorgement amount from $2 million to $1.965 million.

The offender, an experienced mining promoter, was convicted of fraud under the Securities Act for misrepresenting that a cryptocurrency token was backed by an interest in a copper mine.

The court declined to order restitution, finding that the prosecution failed to establish that the fraudulent misrepresentation caused or significantly contributed to the investors' losses, which were primarily due to the project's inability to raise sufficient funds.

The court sentenced the offender to six months in custody and 18 months of probation, emphasizing general deterrence while recognizing that the fraud was not a pure scam for personal enrichment.

The moving party sought leave to appeal his fraud conviction under the Securities Act.

He had been acquitted at trial, but the summary conviction appeal judge entered a conviction, finding the trial judge erred in requiring proof of actual loss caused by detrimental reliance.

The Court of Appeal denied leave on the issue of the standard for causation for fraud, finding the law well-settled.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Hodgson modifies the test for an appellate court to substitute a conviction for an acquittal in the context of a Provincial Offences Act prosecution.

The youth appellant was convicted of manslaughter following a group assault.

At trial, the judge disbelieved the appellant's exculpatory testimony and concluded he had fabricated his account to deflect blame, using this disbelief as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to identify independent evidence of fabrication before using the disbelieved testimony as circumstantial evidence of guilt, contrary to the framework in R. v. Iqbal.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Three accused persons charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder brought a joint defence application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application arose from events at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in late December 2023, where an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT) deployment occurred on Unit 8 following an assault on a correctional officer.

The accused were not involved in the assault but were subjected to the ICIT operation, which involved strip-searches, physical restraints, extraction from cells, and deprivation of clothing for approximately 24-48 hours.

The court found that the ICIT deployment was undertaken solely for purposes of vengeance and punishment, not for any legitimate correctional purpose.

The court found multiple Charter violations under sections 7, 8, and 12, including deprivation of security of the person not in accordance with fundamental justice, unreasonable searches, and cruel and unusual treatment.

The court also found evidence of cover-up, collusion among witnesses, destruction or withholding of evidence, and false testimony by correctional staff.

The court granted a stay of proceedings on all charges, finding this to be an exceptional case where the integrity of the justice system would be better served by staying the proceedings than by proceeding to trial.

The United States sought the extradition of Juan Andres Donato Bautista to stand trial in Florida for money laundering offences.

The respondent challenged the extradition on the grounds that a superseding indictment rendered the Record of the Case unreliable and that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the extradition judge is not concerned with foreign law or foreign charging documents, and that the Authority to Proceed provides the basis for the extradition proceeding.

The court found sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for money laundering and confirmed the respondent's identity.

The respondent was committed into custody to await surrender.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and his sentence.

The appellant was charged in September 2019 with sexual assault and administering a noxious substance.

The latter charge was withdrawn.

Following a hung jury in June 2022, the appellant was tried before a judge alone, who found that he sexually assaulted the complainant twice.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred in finding no breach of section 8 of the Charter regarding an overbroad search of his cell phone; (2) the trial judge erred in finding no breach of section 7 of the Charter based on non-disclosure of the information to obtain the search warrant and minimized the materiality of the hotel video in the conviction; and (3) the trial judge erred in failing to grant sufficient sentencing credit for harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the conviction and sentence.

The Ontario Securities Commission appealed the acquittal of Stephan Katmarian on four counts of securities violations related to the promotion of Peblik Inc., a cryptocurrency token purportedly backed by the Thierry Mine.

The trial judge acquitted Katmarian on all counts.

On appeal, the Superior Court allowed the appeal on Count 1 (fraud), finding the trial judge erred in law regarding the element of deprivation by requiring proof of detrimental reliance rather than risk of deprivation.

The Court dismissed the appeals on Counts 2 (misleading statements to the Commission), 3 (unregistered trading in securities), and 4 (distribution without prospectus).

The Court entered a conviction on Count 1 and remanded for sentencing.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Khalila Mohammed for being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter under s. 463(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered her youth, lack of prior record, remorse, and cooperation with authorities, alongside the serious nature of the offence and her active role in assisting the principal offender post-shooting.

After reviewing relevant case law and sentencing principles, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of 529 days, including house arrest and community service, emphasizing rehabilitation and restraint while ensuring denunciation and deterrence.

This decision addresses whether the accused, Peter Nygard, put his character in issue during his evidence-in-chief in a multi-complainant sexual assault trial, and the resulting scope of permitted Crown cross-examination.

The court found that Nygard did put his character in issue by repeatedly asserting he was not the type of person to commit the offences charged.

The ruling details the careful limits placed on the Crown’s cross-examination to avoid undue prejudice, and provides a thorough analysis of the law regarding character evidence and rebuttal in criminal trials.

This decision addresses multiple criminal charges against Yinuo Liu, including assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose, and impersonation of a peace officer.

The case primarily hinges on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, Ms. Yu, whose testimony was found to be inconsistent, evasive, and motivated by animus and retribution.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including text messages, social media posts, and police testimony, and found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Liu intended to impersonate a police officer or that he assaulted, confined, or harassed Ms. Yu.

The court acquitted Mr. Liu on all counts, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of innocence and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

The decision concerns an application for disclosure in the context of extradition proceedings.

The United States seeks the extradition of Juan Andres Donato Bautista to stand trial in Florida for offences corresponding to laundering proceeds of crime under Canadian law.

The applicant sought disclosure of banking records relating to the Baumann Enterprises Limited account, arguing that a letter from the Bank of Singapore contradicted the Record of the Case (ROC) relied upon by the United States.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold for disclosure in extradition proceedings, as the evidence did not establish manifest unreliability in the ROC.

The application for disclosure was dismissed.

The Arcádia Parties brought a motion to compel Alexey Kondratiev to attend an examination in aid of execution and produce documents to collect on three outstanding cost orders totaling $236,250.

The Kondratiev Parties brought a cross-motion to remove counsel for the Arcádia Parties (three of which are dissolved corporations) and to vacate writs of seizure and sale, arguing that the dissolved corporations lacked legal capacity to instruct counsel or receive payments.

The court granted the Arcádia Parties' motion, compelling the examination and document production, and dismissed the Kondratiev Parties' cross-motion, finding their arguments to be a transparent attempt to evade payment of costs.

The court awarded $20,000 in partial indemnity costs to the Arcádia Parties.

The defendants, Michael Slattery and Skylark Holdings Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

They argued that the plaintiffs had not sustained any damages and had breached the immediate disclosure rule by failing to disclose a partial settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding damages due to conflicting evidence on reliance, and determining that the partial settlement did not significantly alter the litigation dynamics to constitute a breach of the immediate disclosure rule.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to admit expert evidence from Dr. Lori Haskell on the neurobiology of trauma in a sexual assault trial against Peter Nygard.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was irrelevant, unnecessary, and that Dr. Haskell was not properly qualified.

The court applied the Mohan framework and a cost-benefit analysis, finding the evidence relevant to disabuse the jury of myths and stereotypes about victim behaviour, necessary to assist in credibility assessment, and that Dr. Haskell possessed the requisite expertise.

The application was allowed, permitting Dr. Haskell to testify for the limited purpose of explaining general responses to trauma.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to adduce count-to-count similar fact evidence against Peter Nygard in his sexual assault trial.

The court granted the application, finding a significant degree of similarity in the alleged acts and circumstances, which demonstrated a specific propensity and connected to the issues of actus reus and complainant credibility.

The similarities included the use of a unique, hidden private space at 1 Niagara Street, Mr. Nygard's control over access, aggressive physical assaults, berating of complainants, and the use of his wealth and power to lure victims.

The court also addressed the defence's arguments regarding tainting and collusion, concluding that while an opportunity for inadvertent tainting existed due to media reports and shared therapy, there was no air of reality to actual collusion, and the issue of reliability was left to the jury.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of proposed Crown expert opinion evidence from Dr. Mark Crowther in a first-degree murder trial against Dr. Brian Nadler.

Dr. Nadler is accused of causing the deaths of four patients through the administration of narcotics and sedatives.

The Crown sought to introduce Dr. Crowther's "holistic" analysis, which contradicted the findings of forensic pathologists who concluded the deaths were due to natural causes.

The court, applying the Mohan criteria, found that Dr. Crowther, a hematologist, lacked the specific expertise in forensic pathology, toxicology, palliative care, or acute COVID-19 treatment relevant to the complex medical issues at hand.

Despite his impressive general credentials, the court determined his expertise was not properly connected to the material issues, posing a risk that his general impressiveness would give his opinion undue weight.

Consequently, Dr. Crowther's expert opinion evidence was ruled inadmissible.