Bruce G. Thomas

The accused, Roger Craig Short, facing a third trial for first-degree murder, brought several pretrial applications, including one to preclude the Crown from using his testimony from the second trial.

The Crown also brought applications, such as for leave to call more than five expert witnesses and to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct and post-offence conduct.

The court granted leave for additional expert witnesses, ruled on the admissibility and editing of statements to persons in authority and a reporter, and determined the scope of prior discreditable conduct and post-offence conduct evidence.

Crucially, the court exercised its common law exclusionary power to prevent the Crown from cross-examining the accused on his second trial testimony, finding that the previous trial judge's error in forcing counsel to continue, coupled with counsel's inadequacies, created a miscarriage of justice and undermined trial fairness.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Kayla Annette Joanna Stetler, to attend a two-day independent neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed the neuropsychological assessment but was open to a psychological one, arguing that mood and pain, not cognitive impairment, drove her deficits.

The court dismissed the application for a neuropsychological assessment, finding it would impose an undue burden and potentially delay the trial schedule.

Instead, the court ordered the plaintiff to attend a single-day defence psychological assessment.

Ryan Reeb sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurers (The Guarantee Company of North America and The Co-operators General Insurance Company) had a duty to defend him in a negligence action arising from a BB gun incident.

The court found the underlying claim was framed in negligence, not an intentional tort, and that extrinsic evidence should not be considered at this preliminary stage of determining the duty to defend.

The duty to defend was granted.

In a companion application, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA), Reeb's other insurer, sought equitable contribution for future defence costs from Guarantee and Co-operators.

The court granted this, rejecting a limitation period argument and ordering the three insurers to share future defence costs equally.

The moving party, an 81-year-old man, brought a motion to transfer an application regarding his capacity and powers of attorney from Oshawa to Windsor.

The court considered the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the moving party resides in Windsor, the capacity assessments occurred there, and a related application was already commenced in Windsor.

Given the moving party's age, health, and the location of witnesses, the court found it in the interests of justice to transfer the proceeding to Windsor.

The accused brought an application seeking the trial judge's recusal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the judge's findings of fact in previous pre-trial motions.

The accused argued that the judge's findings were palpably unreasonable and consistently favoured the prosecution.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an attempt to reargue decided issues and that the allegations of bias were without merit.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, arguing no reasonable cause of action, lack of standing for the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, and that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs sought declarations of systemic sex discrimination by the London Police Service in investigating sexual assault complaints and an order for a court-supervised external review.

The court allowed the motion in part, affirming that the claim was not plainly and obviously bound to fail and that the Clinic had public interest standing.

However, several paragraphs of the statement of claim were struck for pleading evidence or being vexatious and inflammatory.

The Crown sought to have Brian Morgan-Baylis declared a dangerous offender following his conviction for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and counselling to commit suicide.

The court found Morgan-Baylis to be a dangerous offender under all three subsections of s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, citing a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, a failure to restrain his conduct, and the brutal nature of the predicate offences.

Despite the Crown's request for an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 6 years 4 months (after enhanced pre-sentence custody credit) followed by a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order, concluding that this composite sentence, coupled with robust programming and strict conditions, offered a reasonable expectation of public protection.

The defendant, Ontario, brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff's civil action for wrongful conviction from Toronto to Woodstock.

The plaintiff had been wrongfully convicted of manslaughter in Woodstock in 1971 and spent over three years in prison before being exonerated in 2015.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the plaintiff's damages were sustained outside Woodstock and that forcing him to return to the site of his wrongful conviction would be unjust, the court dismissed the motion, preserving the plaintiff's presumptive right to choose the venue.

The applicant Employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that reclassified the Employment Relations Officer position to a higher level.

The Employer argued it was denied procedural fairness because the arbitrator failed to bifurcate the hearing, depriving it of the opportunity to lead evidence on the proper classification level.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Employer should have known classification was in issue given the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing without objection.

The University of Ottawa brought a motion to set aside a decision finding that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction to hear an application for judicial review brought by the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa.

The Association sought to challenge the compensation paid to two non-unionized employees, arguing it violated wage restraints under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and quashed the application, holding that the compensation decision was essentially a private employment matter lacking the requisite public law dimension for judicial review.

The accused were charged with numerous offences related to dog fighting, firearms, and drug trafficking.

They brought a pre-trial application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total time from charge to the anticipated end of trial was calculated at 30 months and 28 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the delay was primarily caused by late disclosure and the Crown's ill-advised decision to join a co-accused late in the proceedings.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, the court granted the application and stayed all charges.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to reintroduce damages related to five shipping containers, which had been struck by a consent order five years earlier.

The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing the limitation period had expired, constituting non-compensable prejudice, and that the amendment was an abuse of process and barred by issue estoppel.

The court found that while the amendment was not an abuse of process or barred by issue estoppel, the expiration of the limitation period created non-compensable prejudice.

The motion for leave to amend was dismissed.

The defendants in a slip and fall action moved for leave to issue a third party claim against a snow removal contractor.

The motion was brought after the expiry of the limitation period for third party claims.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were the authors of their own misfortune for the delay.

The court held that the prejudice to the plaintiffs, including the potential for further delay, additional examinations, and the erosion of witness memories, significantly outweighed the interest in avoiding multiple proceedings.

The defendant, Persico USA Inc., brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action and/or set aside service of the statement of claim, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection to Ontario and *forum non conveniens*.

The plaintiff, Savvas Koutros, an Ontario resident, sued for wrongful termination from his employment as a plant manager in Michigan.

The court found that the employment contract was made in Michigan, not Ontario, and that Persico did not carry on business in Ontario.

Consequently, the court determined there was no real and substantial connection between the action and Ontario and declined jurisdiction.

Alternatively, the court found Michigan to be the more convenient forum.

The motion was granted, and the action was stayed.

The defendants moved for leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action.

The underlying motion argued that the plaintiffs' notice of action was a nullity and that the statement of claim was delivered after the two-year limitation period expired.

The motions judge had found the notice of action sufficient and relied on the Rules of Civil Procedure to cure any defects.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions regarding the required level of detail in a notice of action and good reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying decision.

The offender, an on-duty police officer, was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after colliding with another vehicle while responding to an emergency call at 178 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

The defence sought an absolute discharge, arguing the officer's motive mitigated his moral culpability.

The court found that while a discharge was in the offender's best interests, it was contrary to the public interest due to the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

A conviction was registered, and the offender was sentenced to a $2,500 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to include accident benefit claims that were the subject of a failed mediation and a subsequently withdrawn arbitration.

The defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing the amendments were barred by the amended Insurance Act, which requires disputes initiated after April 1, 2016, to proceed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The court agreed, finding that allowing the amendments would circumvent the legislative changes.

The motion to amend was dismissed, though the plaintiff was permitted to pursue the claims at the Tribunal and continue litigating her original statement of claim.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder and arson after breaking into the apartment of a pregnant woman to steal her underwear.

When discovered, he brutally murdered the victim and subsequently set the apartment on fire to destroy evidence.

The court weighed the extreme brutality of the unprovoked attack, the vulnerability of the pregnant victim, and the severe post-offence conduct against the offender's guilty plea and lack of prior record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a 22-year period of parole ineligibility for the murder, and a concurrent 5-year sentence for arson.

The accused, a police officer, was responding to an emergency call and drove his police cruiser at 178 km/h in a 50 km/h residential zone.

He collided with a civilian vehicle making a left turn, causing bodily harm to the civilian driver.

The court found that while the civilian driver failed to pull over, the accused's excessive speed in a residential area with multiple hazards was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable police officer in the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award regarding a real estate commission dispute on the basis that the arbitration committee provided no reasons for its decision.

The court found that the total absence of reasons violated section 38 of the Arbitration Act and common law requirements.

Because there was no record of the arbitration proceedings and no assurance the committee members could recall their reasoning, the court declined to remit the matter back to the committee and instead set aside the award.