Cameron Peters

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and failure to provide a suitable breath sample.

The Crown's case rested on evidence that the accused was found impaired in the driver's seat of his vehicle with keys accessible nearby, and that he deliberately failed to provide a breath sample.

The defence challenged the charges on substantive grounds and also brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 9, and 10(a).

The court found that while the Crown had proven both offences beyond a reasonable doubt on the merits, the accused's rights were violated during an unjustified investigative detention that involved excessive force, including handcuffing, forced confinement in a police cruiser, and physical violence.

The court stayed both charges pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter and the common law doctrine of abuse of process, finding that proceeding with the prosecution would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused brought an application seeking production of correctional institution records relating to inmate-on-inmate assaults, institutional responses, disciplinary actions, and injuries at a provincial correctional centre.

The request was advanced as either first-party disclosure under Stinchcombe or third-party production under the O’Connor framework to support a proposed defence of duress to a charge of assault causing bodily harm against another inmate.

The court held the records were third-party records and assessed the request under the O’Connor test.

The applicant failed to establish the threshold of likely relevance because the supporting affidavit merely asserted that a defence of duress would be raised and provided no evidentiary nexus between the requested records and the alleged offence.

The application was dismissed as a speculative fishing expedition.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award which held that the employer was obligated under the collective agreement to pay the newly introduced Ontario Health Premium on behalf of its employees.

The Divisional Court applied the patently unreasonable standard of review, following recent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, and found the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement to be logical and reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The respondent hospital sought disclosure of documents and information relating to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission objected, arguing the request was premature and that the information was privileged.

The Board of Inquiry held that the Stinchcombe doctrine of disclosure applies to human rights proceedings given the serious nature of the allegations.

The Board found that while documents prepared for conciliation or litigation are privileged, statements gathered during the investigation stage are not.

The Board quashed the hospital's subpoena as premature but ordered the Commission to disclose complainant statements and relevant witness statements.