Charles Daoust

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her sexual battery claim against her former husband and a defamation judgment against her for a Facebook post alleging he sexually and physically abused her.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred by placing the burden on the appellant to prove non-consent in the battery action, this did not result in a miscarriage of justice because the trial judge made affirmative findings that she had consented.

The Court also held that the trial judge correctly required the appellant to prove the truth of her allegations in the defamation action, declining to extend the reverse onus for consent in battery cases to defamation claims involving allegations of battery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, a dairy farm and its owner, appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) to cancel their milk operating licence.

The cancellation followed a third shut-off from the milk market within a 24-month period due to elevated somatic cell counts and abnormal freezing point estimates.

The appellants argued the quality issues were caused by defective robotic milking equipment and poor technical support.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's decision, finding that the appellants had received numerous warnings and failed to take timely corrective action, such as returning to a pipeline milking system, thereby posing an unacceptable risk to the safety and integrity of the milk marketing system.