Charles T. Hackland

The accused was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement against his spouse.

The offences involved luring the complainant, binding her, whipping her with a belt, and forcing sexual intercourse.

Despite the complainant's plea for a non-custodial sentence to preserve their business and co-parenting arrangement, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for serious domestic violence.

The accused was sentenced to two years in penitentiary for sexual assault with a weapon and a concurrent 12-month term for unlawful confinement.

The appellant distributor appealed a Tribunal decision finding it had improperly terminated a dealership agreement with the respondent dealer.

The Tribunal had awarded damages and costs to the dealer.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that Regulation 123/06 under the Farm Implements Act applied retrospectively to the agreement.

The majority held that the Tribunal's findings regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the unreasonableness of the distributor's refusal to renew were questions of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal.

However, the Court unanimously set aside the Tribunal's award of damages for obsolete assets as an error of law, and quashed the costs award, remitting it to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The appellant wife appealed a motion judge's order that retroactively reduced the respondent husband's child and spousal support obligations.

The motion judge had found a material change in circumstances because the husband, who previously had income imputed to him due to unreliable financial disclosure, filed tax returns and an accountant's report.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding no material change in circumstances as the husband's newly declared income was essentially the same as what he claimed at trial, and the accountant's report relied entirely on his self-reported figures which the trial judge had already deemed unreliable.

The retroactive reduction was also found to be in error.

Following a successful appeal from a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs of $12,367.42.

The Board argued that no costs should be awarded against it due to its role as an administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that because the Board took an active, adversarial role on the appeal, an award of costs was appropriate.

Finding the claimed amount excessive, the Court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order dismissing their motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement.

The plaintiff's former lawyer had accepted a $12,500 settlement offer from the TTC, but the plaintiff later claimed she did not give instructions to settle and sued her lawyer.

The motion judge found no settlement existed and refused to enforce it.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lawyer had ostensible authority to bind his client, the acceptance was clear and unambiguous, and there was no basis for the TTC to know of any lack of instructions.

The settlement was enforced.

The defendant dentist brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a dental negligence action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant argued that the claim was discoverable when the plaintiff complained about failed bridgework and threatened legal action during treatment.

The court held that the limitation period did not begin at that time because the plaintiff reasonably relied on the dentist’s explanations and continued remedial treatment.

Evidence showed the dentist’s negligent treatment continued throughout the remaining course of care and lacked informed consent.

The court concluded that the claim was not discoverable until the dentist‑patient relationship ended and that commencing litigation earlier would not have been an appropriate means of remedy while treatment was ongoing.

Following convictions for trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of proceeds of crime, the accused brought a post‑trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis of police entrapment and also renewed an application for further disclosure regarding a confidential informant.

The court considered whether a police “cold call” offering an opportunity to sell drugs occurred before the officer had reasonable suspicion that the accused was engaged in drug trafficking.

The court held that the exchange between the undercover officer and the accused during the initial call gave rise to reasonable suspicion before any offer to purchase drugs was made.

The accused therefore failed to establish entrapment or a breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

The renewed disclosure request relating to confidential informant information was also dismissed as an impermissible fishing expedition into privileged material.

Following a successful motion by certain beneficiaries to remove estate counsel, the court determined the costs consequences.

Applying Rule 57 principles governing costs in estate litigation, the court held that costs should generally follow the event and be borne personally by litigants rather than the estate except in narrow circumstances.

The court found the moving parties were entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis but reduced the claimed fees and disbursements as excessive, including reducing photocopy disbursements.

Costs were fixed at reduced amounts and ordered payable personally by the estate trustees on a joint and several basis.

Following a solicitor‑client account assessment, the court determined costs arising from the proceeding.

The client obtained significant reductions to the law firm’s accounts, approaching approximately 50% of the amounts billed, including the elimination or waiver of certain accounts and other reductions.

The court considered the parties’ Rule 49 settlement offers and litigation conduct in assessing substantial success under the framework of Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the client was substantially successful, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity fees and certain disbursements were allowed, with reductions where claimed disbursements were inappropriate or related to excluded expert evidence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and assault with weapons arising from an incident involving a former spouse following the breakdown of their marriage.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the complainant upstairs under the pretext of reviewing financial information, restrained her with rope, whipped her with a belt, shaved her pubic hair, and engaged in non-consensual intercourse.

The accused argued that the encounter formed part of consensual sexual role‑playing and that he honestly believed the complainant consented.

The court rejected the defence, finding no evidence that the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent as required under s. 273.2 of the Criminal Code and concluding that the complainant did not consent to any aspect of the encounter.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and assault with weapons.

The applicant, a former TTC bus driver, sought judicial review of a decision by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for lost income following his retirement.

The Board had awarded him partial wage loss for a period prior to his retirement, finding that a workplace assault exacerbated his psychological issues, but denied wage loss post-retirement based on a WSIB report concluding his issues were unrelated to the assault.

The Divisional Court quashed the Board's decision, finding it unreasonable because the Board reached contradictory conclusions on causation without adequate explanation and improperly relied on selective quotes from a WSIB decision rather than the actual medical evidence before it.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision finding they were 'owners' under the Construction Lien Act and owed trust obligations to construction trades.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's finding on ownership was a question of mixed fact and law entitled to deference.

The court also rejected the appellants' argument that privity of contract was required to impose trust obligations under section 9 of the Act, noting that such an interpretation would defeat the legislation's purpose of ensuring contractors and workers are paid in priority to owners.

The appellants appealed an order appointing a supervisor/receiver for their restaurant business and adding them as respondents in the proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had a reasonable basis to appoint a supervisor to preserve and value the business, given unanswered allegations of fraud and apparent contravention of an earlier order in oppression proceedings.

The court noted the motion judge remained seized of the matter for further directions.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC) dismissing his privacy complaint against the Peel Regional Police Service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the IPC's refusal to investigate a privacy complaint is a legislative function protected by parliamentary privilege.

Alternatively, the Court held that the IPC reasonably concluded the police disclosure to the Children's Aid Society was justified under the duty to report a child in need of protection pursuant to section 72 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The moving party, a professional association, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process or for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, a former member of the association, sued for defamation, conspiracy, and breach of privacy arising from the association's publication of a notice of hearing that included his own complaint against co-workers.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on the association's unappealed discipline decision.

Furthermore, the court held that the defamation and privacy claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the association was protected by statutory immunity and absolute privilege.

The court considered costs following two case conferences convened on the court’s own motion due to the plaintiff’s procedural conduct in related proceedings concerning a political party’s refusal to permit him to seek its nomination as a candidate.

The plaintiff, who was self‑represented, had scheduled multiple motions contrary to court directions and attempted to reinstate a vacated motion date after abandoning an earlier proceeding.

The defendants sought $2,000 in costs, while the plaintiff requested $35,000 for work performed in the proceedings.

The court found the case conferences were necessitated by the plaintiff’s inappropriate conduct and that the defendants’ request was reasonable.

Costs of $2,000 inclusive of HST were awarded to the defendants, payable forthwith by the plaintiff.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order bifurcating a jury trial so that liability would be tried first and damages later in a motor vehicle accident action involving catastrophic brain injury and complex insurance coverage issues.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to bifurcate liability and damages where a valid jury notice had been delivered and the parties did not consent, relying on binding Court of Appeal authority.

The court further noted that even if jurisdiction existed, bifurcation would risk duplicative evidence, inconsistent findings, additional delay and cost, and could undermine settlement incentives.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff.

The offender, who suffers from severe schizo-affective disorder, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after stabbing a fellow rooming house tenant.

The court weighed the principles of general deterrence and public protection against the offender's mental illness and need for rehabilitation.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, less 4 years' credit for pre-trial custody, with a strong recommendation for treatment at a Regional Treatment Centre.

The offender, suffering from schizo-affective disorder and psychotic delusions, fatally stabbed a fellow resident in a rooming house.

Following an unsuccessful NCR defence, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years imprisonment, less 4 years credit for pre-trial custody, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and public protection through psychiatric treatment within the federal penitentiary system.

The applicant, acting personally and as executor of his mother's estate, sought an assessment of his former law firm's accounts totaling over $190,000.

The core dispute was whether the law firm provided competent advice when it recommended commencing a lawsuit and an interlocutory motion against the applicant's brothers to have jointly held assets paid into the estate, primarily to leverage higher executor's compensation.

The court found that the motion was ill-advised, unlikely to succeed, and of no value to the client, as the underlying issues could have been resolved through a passing of accounts.

The court ordered the law firm to repay $73,000 in fees and disbursements related to the motion, while approving the balance of the accounts.