Catherine D. Aitken

The appellants appealed the judgment of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the decision and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $2,500.

The appellant appealed his third conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge improperly discounted defence witnesses' testimony because they had to reconstruct events years later, holding the defence to an impossible standard.

Given that this would be the appellant's fourth trial for an incident that occurred 13 years prior, the Court concluded that proceeding further would violate the community's sense of fair play.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a stay of proceedings entered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud and theft, arguing for the first time on appeal that the Crown prosecutor was in a conflict of interest for having previously represented him on an assault charge.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence but found no actual conflict of interest or prejudice, as the matters were independent and no relevant confidential information was used.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the custodial sentence due to the seriousness of the frauds committed against a charitable institution.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault, arguing that the trial judge misdirected himself on the defence of accident and failed to adequately address conflicting expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made clear findings of an intentional assault and properly handled the conflict in expert evidence.

The court noted that the trial judge's careful analysis of the expert testimony justified rejecting the basis for the defence expert's opinion.

The appeal from sentence was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The victim had described his assailant's build, hair, clothing, age, and state of intoxication.

The appellant was found in the area twenty minutes later matching the description, had scratches on his chest, admitted to being in a fight, and was immediately recognized by the victim.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge properly dealt with minor inconsistencies and dismissed the appeal.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons appealed an order granting a physician a stay of his licence revocation pending his appeal of a finding of incompetence.

The College argued that s. 71 of the Health Professions Procedural Code ousted the court's jurisdiction to grant a stay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 71 merely eliminates the automatic stay that would otherwise apply under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but does not remove the court's inherent and statutory jurisdiction to grant a stay on application where appropriate.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for injuries sustained during a shore excursion in Grenada.

The defendants, residents of Grenada, were served ex juris and brought a motion to set aside service and stay the claims, which was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision because he failed to distinguish between the tests for jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens, and there were conflicting decisions on whether a plaintiff's residence and ongoing damages in Ontario are sufficient to establish a real and substantial connection.

The applicant, the Régie des rentes du Québec, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Pension Commission of Ontario, which had approved the withdrawal of a pension surplus by an employer.

The pension plan had members in both Ontario and Québec.

The respondent, acting as the major authority under a reciprocal agreement, applied Ontario law exclusively to the surplus application.

The Divisional Court found the respondent's decision unreasonable because it failed to consider or apply Québec law to the Québec members, despite the plan's terms and the lack of an express exemption.

The decision was quashed as it affected Québec members and remitted for reconsideration.

The plaintiffs, police officers, brought an action against two Assistant Crown Attorneys and the Crown for negligence, malicious prosecution, and other claims arising from assault charges laid against them.

The defendants moved to strike the negligence claims and the vicarious liability claims against the Crown.

The motions judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Crown Attorneys are absolutely immune from suits for negligence, and the Crown is immune from liability for the actions of Crown Attorneys under s. 5(6) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The negligence claims and the action against the Crown (except for Charter claims) were struck out.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decision not to deal with her human rights complaint and its subsequent refusal to reconsider that decision.

The Commission had found that the applicant acted in bad faith by pursuing a complaint after signing a release with her former employer.

The Commission later conceded it erred and brought a motion to quash its own decisions on consent of the applicant, which the employer opposed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the Commission's motion, holding that a judicial review cannot be settled without the consent of all parties.

On the merits of the judicial review, the Court found the Commission improperly fettered its discretion by equating the signing of a release with bad faith without considering the context, and erred in requiring new facts for a reconsideration.

The decisions were quashed and the matter remitted to the Commission.