Brian H. Greenspan

Appellants were convicted of two counts of hindering or obstructing a provincial offences officer contrary to section 42(1) of the Nutrient Management Act.

The appellants parked their truck directly in front of Ministry of the Environment inspectors' truck, blocking its exit, and refused multiple requests to move.

The appellants appealed their convictions arguing the actus reus was not proven and that they exercised due diligence.

The court dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants' actions constituted obstruction and that they failed to establish a due diligence defence, as their belief that the officers were trespassing was based on a mistake of law and was not reasonably held in the circumstances.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for the deaths of two men who were beaten to death.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including DNA, cellphone records, voice recognition, and eyewitness resemblance, to place the appellant at the scene.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence, viewed individually and collectively, was too frail to support the inference that the appellant was present at the scene.

The court concluded that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and entered acquittals.

On a Crown application in a criminal price-fixing prosecution, the court considered whether factual information supplied by cooperating corporations to the Competition Bureau during immunity and leniency proffers was protected from disclosure by settlement privilege or solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that solicitor-client privilege was waived when the information was voluntarily provided to the prosecuting authorities for use against other accused persons.

It further held that settlement privilege did not extend to factual information given in circumstances where the providers knew the information would be used to prosecute others and were themselves no longer exposed to resulting criminal or civil jeopardy.

In any event, the accused's constitutional right to make full answer and defence would override settlement privilege, and the applicable disclosure standard was the first party Stinchcombe regime.

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.

Following the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal, the successful responding parties sought costs.

They submitted a joint draft bill of costs reflecting fees, disbursements, and HST, with a reduction applied for duplication of work between two law firms.

The court found the respondents entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis and held that the draft bill appropriately reflected the Rule 57.01 factors, including the complexity of the proceeding and late amendments to the grounds of appeal.

The moving party accepted the claimed amount but requested a deduction to account for an outstanding prior costs order.

The court fixed costs accordingly after deducting the outstanding amount.

The appellant, who was 17 at the time of the offences, appealed the imposition of an adult sentence following his conviction for second degree murder and offering an indignity to a dead body.

He argued that the sentencing judge mischaracterized the jury’s implied factual findings and erred in concluding that the presumption of diminished moral culpability under the Youth Criminal Justice Act had been rebutted.

The court held that, on the evidentiary record and jury instructions, the finding that the appellant inflicted at least one stab wound reasonably flowed from the verdict.

The court further held that the sentencing judge undertook a full and balanced analysis under s. 72 of the YCJA and properly concluded that a youth sentence would not be sufficient to hold the appellant accountable.

Fresh evidence concerning rehabilitation, institutional placement, and possible transfer to Germany did not alter that conclusion.

The defendant tobacco companies brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' proposed class actions as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached their contracts by participating in smuggling duty-free tobacco back into Canada, avoiding higher domestic prices.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the alleged smuggling long before commencing the actions in 2009 and 2010.

The court dismissed the motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the plaintiffs discovered the constituent elements of their claims, particularly given the defendants' consistent denials of involvement in smuggling.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a motion for the interim preservation of over $4 million under the Civil Remedies Act.

The funds were the proceeds of the sale of a commercial property previously housing an illegal marijuana grow operation and later leased to a company involved in a stock fraud scheme.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity.

Leave to appeal was denied.

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 applicant, a Bangladeshi citizen residing in Bangladesh, was charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act with bribing foreign public officials in relation to a bridge construction project.

He brought an application to prohibit the Crown from proceeding with the charge, arguing that Canada lacked jurisdiction over him as a foreign national whose alleged acts occurred entirely outside Canada.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while Canada had jurisdiction over the offence itself, the Act did not extend jurisdiction over the person of a foreign national acting abroad unless they were physically present in Canada.

The court granted a stay of proceedings against the applicant.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act for an order to preserve over $4 million, representing the sale proceeds of a commercial property.

The property had previously housed a massive, concealed marijuana grow operation run by tenants, and was later leased to a company involved in a U.S. stock fraud scheme.

The court found no issue estoppel from prior unsuccessful federal criminal forfeiture proceedings against the property owner.

While the court found reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity due to the grow operation, it ultimately dismissed the preservation motion.

The court concluded that preserving the funds would clearly not be in the interests of justice, as the owner had no knowledge of or participation in the unlawful activities, making a preservation order manifestly harsh and draconian.

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 applicant, an anesthesiologist convicted of sexually assaulting 21 female patients during surgery, applied for judicial interim release pending his appeal against conviction.

He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

The court found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender into custody, his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The grounds of appeal were deemed weak and unlikely to succeed, and the need for immediate enforcement of the judgment outweighed the need for review given the seriousness of the offences.

The application was dismissed.

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.

The applicant, charged with child pornography offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found no breach of ss. 8 or 10, as the police questioning at his home did not constitute a search or psychological detention.

However, the court found breaches of s. 9, due to an arbitrary three-day detention based on faulty police information, and s. 7, due to mistreatment in custody including the denial of medication for his obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Despite these breaches, the court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that the prejudice could be adequately addressed through other remedies, such as a sentence reduction if convicted.

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 appellant was convicted of first-degree murder as an aider or abettor to a shooting during a drug rip-off.

The principal shooter was convicted of second-degree murder in a separate trial.

The appellant appealed, arguing the jury instructions were inadequate and unbalanced, and that his conviction for a more serious offence than the principal violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge adequate and affirming the principle that an aider or abettor's culpability is not limited by the liability of the principal.