Brian H. Greenspan

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed her convictions and five-year consecutive sentences for arson and administering a noxious substance.

The appellant had spiked her daughter-in-law's drink with a sleep aid during a discussion about a custody dispute, and subsequently set fire to the house while the victim slept.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension of the expert fire evidence or the complainant's testimony.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the consecutive sentences were justified for offences invading distinct societal interests, and the global sentence was fit given the serious aggravating factors.

The appellant, a former senior officer and director of a publicly held waste management firm, appealed his convictions for fraud over $5,000 and his sentence of eight years' imprisonment, a US $17.9 million restitution order, and a US $15.5 million fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The convictions arose from his undisclosed involvement in copper trading transactions that diverted millions of dollars from his employer to companies he controlled.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions on the duty to disclose, responses to jury questions, or the overall balance of the jury charge.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the Court affirming the fitness of the sentence and the appropriateness of the restitution and fine orders, subject only to a clarification that restitution payments would be credited against the fine to prevent double recovery.

The offender, an anesthesiologist, was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault against female patients during surgical procedures while the victims were sedated and unable to resist.

The court emphasized the extreme breach of trust inherent in abusing a position of medical authority over vulnerable patients in an operating room.

Aggravating factors included the number of victims, the sexual nature of the assaults, the deliberate exploitation of sedation, and the profound psychological harm to victims.

While the offender had no prior criminal record and strong community support, the court held that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount.

Applying the totality principle to multiple counts, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

This appeal and cross-appeal addressed whether Ontario’s SIU framework permits police officers involved in fatal incidents to consult counsel before completing duty notes.

The majority held the regulatory scheme does not permit consultation with counsel at the note-making stage, emphasizing transparency, public confidence, legislative history, and the duty to prepare independent, complete notes.

It rejected even limited pre-note legal consultation as inconsistent with the scheme’s objectives, while confirming officers may consult counsel after filing notes.

The cross-appeal was allowed, overturning the Court of Appeal’s allowance of basic legal advice prior to notes.

Dissenting reasons on cross-appeal would have preserved a narrow right to basic legal advice that excluded drafting assistance.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients.

The assaults allegedly occurred while the patients were under conscious sedation during various surgeries.

The defence argued that the accused lacked the opportunity to commit the offences undetected and that the anesthetic drugs caused sexual hallucinations, rendering the complainants' memories unreliable.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the operating room draping provided sufficient concealment and that the drugs administered do not cause hallucinations of sexual assault.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients under his care during surgeries.

The Crown alleged that the accused used the cover of surgical draping and the patients' state of conscious sedation to commit the assaults undetected.

The defence argued that the assaults were physically impossible, could not have occurred without detection, and that the patients' memories were unreliable due to drug-induced hallucinations.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding that the accused had the opportunity to commit the offences and that the drugs administered do not cause sexual hallucinations.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.

In a criminal trial involving multiple allegations of sexual assault by an anesthesiologist against sedated patients during surgery, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility and scope of defence expert evidence concerning the effects of psychotropic drugs on perception and memory.

Applying the framework from R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification, followed by a cost‑benefit analysis of probative value versus prejudice.

The court held that three defence experts—including two anesthesiologists and a psychiatrist—met the threshold admissibility requirements.

Although limitations existed regarding aspects of their expertise, those limitations affected weight rather than admissibility.

The experts’ testimony was admitted subject to general limits preventing opinions outside their expertise, including speculation about surgical practices or motives for the alleged offences.

The Crown appealed from the respondent's acquittal on a charge of counselling the commission of murder.

The respondent, a victim of severe spousal abuse, had attempted to hire a hit man to kill her husband.

The trial judge acquitted on the basis of the common law defence of duress.

The Supreme Court held that duress requires compulsion to commit a specific offence and is not available where threats were not made for the purpose of compelling the commission of an offence.

However, given the uncertainty in the law, the Crown's change of position between trial and appeal, and the exceptional circumstances, a stay of proceedings was entered rather than ordering a new trial.

Fish J. dissented in part, favouring a new trial over a stay.

The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.

The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.

The applicant, charged with attempted murder and various firearm offences, sought release on bail pending trial.

The applicant allegedly shot the complainant in the neck, resulting in paralysis, while on bail for previous gun and drug charges.

The court found that while detention was not justified on the primary ground, it was justified on the secondary ground due to the strong Crown case and the applicant's previous breach of bail conditions.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the circumstances.

The bail review application was dismissed.