Brian H. Greenspan

The Law Society of Ontario investigated the appellant lawyer for failing to promptly and completely produce documents related to his firm's structure and referral fee practices, breaching Rule 7.1-1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division found professional misconduct, which was upheld by the Appeal Division and the Divisional Court.

The appellant argued that the lower courts erred by applying a purely objective test to "good faith" in the duty to cooperate, effectively creating an absolute liability offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the test for failure to cooperate is a mixed subjective and objective one, considering all circumstances and good faith efforts, but clarified that ignorance of record-keeping obligations cannot serve as a "good faith explanation" for delay.

A police officer, Remo Romano, appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and his eight-month custodial sentence.

The conviction arose from a fatal collision where he struck and killed a pedestrian while driving at excessive speed during undercover surveillance.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly focused the jury on the consequences of his driving rather than the manner of driving, and failed to adequately explain the "marked departure" standard for mens rea.

He also sought a reduction in sentence or a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the jury charge was appropriate and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, even considering the newfound availability of conditional sentences for this offence.

During a dangerous offender hearing, the Crown sought to abandon reliance on a court-ordered psychiatrist whose evidence was challenged in cross-examination, and instead tender the evidence of a new psychiatrist.

The defence brought an abuse of process motion under s. 7 of the Charter, arguing the Crown was seeking an improper litigation advantage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Crown was attempting to provide the court with as much information as possible to assess the offender's risk, rather than acting for an oblique motive.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The proceedings spanned over 19 years, involving three trials, an appeal, and a dangerous offender application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the net pre-verdict delay was below the Jordan ceiling after deducting significant periods of defence delay—including the accused absconding and repeatedly changing counsel—and exceptional circumstances such as a mistrial.

The court also found the post-verdict delay reasonable, as it was justified by the complexity of the dangerous offender application, further defence delays, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The appellant was convicted of four counts of indecent assault and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

He appealed both conviction and sentence but passed away shortly after perfecting the appeal.

The parties jointly consented to dismiss the appeal as abated.

The Court of Appeal applied the test for moot appeals and found no exceptional circumstances or continuing controversy that would justify departing from the general rule that the death of an accused renders an appeal moot.

The appeals were dismissed as abated without adjudication on the merits.

The appellant, Marc Vickers, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, seeking a new trial based on fresh evidence.

The proposed evidence consisted of unsworn, unrecorded hearsay statements from C.B. (the victim's son, also convicted of the murder) recanting his trial testimony and claiming sole responsibility for the killing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence did not meet the admissibility requirements of necessity and reliability under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, nor the cogency requirement.

The court emphasized that C.B. was available to testify, and his inconsistent recantations lacked inherent trustworthiness and adequate procedural safeguards.

ATV Farms sought certiorari to quash search warrants and production orders, and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed, following a CFIA investigation into alleged mislabelling of produce.

The court found reasonable grounds for specific mislabelling offences related to US-grown turnips (Counts 1-4) but not for broader, unparticularized allegations (Count 5).

The Information to Obtain (ITO) contained inaccurate and misleading statements regarding a prior incident, which, once corrected, undermined the grounds for Count 5.

The court held that the broad search warrants and production orders could not be severed and were therefore unlawful, infringing ATV Farms's s. 8 Charter rights.

The three accused were charged with importing cocaine after returning from a vacation in Jamaica.

Border Services Officers found approximately half a kilo of cocaine hidden inside cocoa powder cans in each of their checked suitcases.

The accused immediately disavowed knowledge of the drugs, claiming they were planted by unknown persons.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that 'Occam's Razor' proved guilt and found that the accused's immediate disavowals and testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding their knowledge of the drugs.

All three accused were found not guilty.

The offender, a 19-year-old international student, was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for second-degree murder.

The offender returned to the victim's home after an initial altercation and assaulted the victim, causing a fatal rupture of the victim's vertebral artery.

The court found the assault was a planned and premeditated ambush in the victim's home, elevating the moral blameworthiness of the offence.

After weighing the aggravating factors against the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a sentence of 5 years' imprisonment, reduced to 53 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The appellant physician appealed the revocation of his certificate of registration by the Discipline Committee.

He had admitted to incompetence and professional misconduct, including boundary issues and poor clinical care.

The appellant argued the Committee ignored his prospects for rehabilitation and over-emphasized his disciplinary history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's conclusion that the appellant lacked insight and posed a serious risk to the public was reasonable and justified the revocation.

The appellant appealed his second-degree murder conviction for the shooting death of his common-law partner and the 15-year parole ineligibility portion of his sentence.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred by preventing cross-examination regarding a polygraph test administered to a key Crown witness and by admitting expert testimony from a bloodstain analyst.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings and upholding the sentencing decision despite a jury recommendation for 10 years of parole ineligibility.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division upholding a finding that he failed to co-operate with a Law Society investigation into his firm's referral practices.

The appellant argued that his delay in providing financial records was due to confusion and misunderstanding, and that the Appeal Division interpreted the concept of 'good faith' too narrowly.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Division reasonably concluded that good faith requires more than an absence of bad faith, and that ignorance of professional obligations or negligence in fulfilling them does not constitute good faith.

The applicant, ATV Farms, sought certiorari to quash search warrants executed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed.

The CFIA had seized documents based on alleged mislabeling of produce.

The Crown opposed, arguing the matter should be heard by a trial judge if charges were laid.

The court addressed the preliminary issue of whether to hear the application at this stage, concluding that the overall interests of justice favoured allowing the application to proceed.

This decision was based on the applicant's claim of reputational and financial harm and its decision to seek only declaratory relief, not the return of seized documents, which mitigated concerns about interfering with the ongoing investigation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and sexual interference.

The trial judge found that the appellant had sexually assaulted a 15-year-old complainant at a property he owned, holding a knife to her throat and forcing her to perform fellatio.

The appellant's defence relied on a medical condition affecting his genitals and a theory of innocent secondary transfer of semen.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, treatment of DNA evidence, or application of the collateral fact rule.

The appellant, Furkan Karatekin, appealed his conviction and nine-month imprisonment sentence for sexual assault.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's credibility findings were fundamentally flawed due to misapprehension of evidence, uneven scrutiny of Crown and defence testimony, and improper use of the appellant's police statement.

The trial judge's reasoning regarding the appellant's cellphone number explanation, ankle injury, and police statement was deemed problematic.

The cumulative effect of these palpable and overriding errors rendered the conviction unsafe.

The conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

Appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, arguing counsel failed to provide disclosure, failed to prepare him to testify, failed to obtain medical and phone records, and failed to confront the complainant with DNA evidence and inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's conduct fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance and that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The trial judge's credibility findings were based on the appellant's implausible evidence and were supported by the record.

The appellant A.R. appealed his conviction on six counts of sexual assault, two counts of uttering threats, and two counts of assault arising from allegations of domestic violence against his ex-wife between 2011 and 2013.

He received a global sentence of four years.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility and alleged differential scrutiny of witness testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and gave adequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence on each count.

The sentence appeal was not addressed as it was contingent on the conviction appeal being allowed.

Two appellants were convicted following a jury trial for their roles in an armed robbery of a drug dealer's residence in Barrhaven.

During the robbery, one of the perpetrators shot and killed the resident.

The first appellant was convicted of first degree murder; the second appellant was convicted of second degree murder.

On appeal, the first appellant's conviction was upheld.

However, the second appellant's conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered due to errors in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the mens rea requirement for party liability to murder under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants were convicted of two counts of breaching a regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act.

At trial, they were sentenced to fines of $5,000 each and a two-year probation order requiring reconstruction of a seawall.

The Conservation Authority appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, seeking removal of a home addition as a sentencing term.

The POAC judge allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, remitted the fines, and ordered removal of the addition.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arguing the POAC judge exceeded the scope of appellate review by reversing factual findings without identifying palpable and overriding error.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the POAC judge impermissibly substituted his own findings regarding whether the conduct constituted a flagrant and deliberate breach of the regulations.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action.

The respondents were entirely successful on appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

West Face Capital Inc. sought $250,000 in costs while Brandon Moyse sought $149,905.18.

The appellant argued for reduced costs amounts.

The Court of Appeal awarded West Face $200,000 and Moyse $100,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the respondents' complete success, the nature of the appeal involving a large record and detailed factual re-litigation, and costs thrown away due to an unnecessary adjournment.