Charles T. Hackland

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, threatening death, intimidation, and criminal harassment against his wife and five children over a 24-year marriage.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting his wife on two occasions and his eldest son on one occasion, rejecting the defence of reasonable correction under section 43 of the Criminal Code for the use of a toy bat.

The accused was also found guilty of criminally harassing his wife and two of his younger sons due to his controlling behaviour, emotional abuse, and use of a leather belt for discipline.

The accused was acquitted of the remaining charges, including threatening death and intimidation, due to reasonable doubt regarding his intent and lawful authority.

The defendant federal regulator brought a motion under Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of a question of law that it owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff insurers in relation to regulatory oversight of an airport.

The action arose from an aircraft runway overrun where the plaintiffs alleged negligence in runway design and construction, ownership of the airport, and regulatory certification of the airport despite known safety deficiencies.

The court held that although existing jurisprudence suggests regulators generally do not owe private law duties of care for policy‑based regulatory decisions, it was not plain and obvious that special circumstances could not give rise to such a duty in the pleaded factual context.

Issues relating to the statutory framework, the characterization of certification decisions as policy or operational, and the factual circumstances required a full evidentiary record.

The motion to strike the regulatory negligence allegations and related pleadings was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to amend a statement of claim in a professional negligence action to add two former solicitors as defendants for allegedly failing to commence a commercial fire loss action within the applicable limitation period.

The proposed defendants opposed the amendment, arguing there was no evidence of retainer in one case and that the claims were statute‑barred.

The court held that the evidence demonstrated one solicitor had not been retained to pursue the fire loss claim and therefore there was no basis to add him as a defendant.

With respect to the second solicitor, the court concluded that the plaintiff was aware of the missed limitation issue when his subsequent counsel assumed carriage of the file, triggering the two‑year limitation period for a negligence claim.

As the motion to add that solicitor was brought after the limitation period expired, the amendment was refused.

The defendants moved under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a long‑standing action for delay or, alternatively, to terminate an interim order freezing a bank account.

The dispute concerned whether certain real property and a bank account were held in trust for the estate of a deceased parent or beneficially owned by two siblings who held legal title.

The action had been commenced more than fourteen years earlier and virtually no steps had been taken to advance it, allegedly due to related estate litigation in the Philippines.

The court found no continuing justification for maintaining the freeze order on the bank account, particularly given the lack of evidence supporting the alleged trust claim and the hardship imposed on the defendants.

The freeze order was vacated and the plaintiffs were ordered to set the matter down for trial within 30 days, failing which the action could be dismissed and the certificate of pending litigation vacated.

After dismissal of a constitutional application for lack of standing and non‑justiciability, the respondent sought costs of the proceeding.

The court considered the absence of Rule 49 offers and the respondent’s partial indemnity entitlement as the successful party.

The respondent incurred over $38,000 in legal costs and disbursements but sought recovery of $10,000.

The court found the request reasonable given the constitutional issues raised and the applicant’s litigation conduct, including voluminous irrelevant materials and late filings.

Costs of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded against the applicant.

Following the plaintiff’s successful opposition to a motion for particulars in complex competition litigation, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $70,000 out of approximately $106,569 incurred, while the defendants proposed $42,055.

The court accepted that the litigation and motion were complex, involved extensive documentation, cross-examinations, and several days of argument, and that the plaintiff’s counsel’s rates and time were reasonable.

However, reductions were warranted because a cross-motion to strike affidavits was unnecessary and withdrawn, and certain document review costs related to the broader action rather than the motion itself.

The court fixed reasonable partial indemnity costs at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court sentenced an offender who pleaded guilty to 16 historic offences involving prolonged sexual, physical, and emotional abuse of two child complainants who had been placed in his care.

Applying the Ontario Court of Appeal's framework for serious child sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust, the court held that denunciation and deterrence were the dominant sentencing objectives and that a low double-digit penitentiary sentence was warranted.

Although the Crown sought consecutive sentences for each complainant subject to totality, the court concluded that a global sentence better reflected the circumstances and imposed concurrent 13-year terms on the lead counts, with concurrent 5-year terms on the remaining counts.

Ancillary lifetime and statutory prohibition orders were also imposed.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing summary judgment in an action for statutory accident benefits.

The underlying action had been commenced more than four years after the insurer’s initial denial of benefits, despite a statutory two‑year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The motion judge declined summary judgment due to concerns about a subsequent denial form containing an error and a later medical report suggesting fibromyalgia related to the accident.

The court held that the law is well settled that the two‑year limitation runs from the insurer’s refusal and is not subject to discoverability.

Leave to appeal was granted because the decision appeared inconsistent with other Ontario authorities and clarification of the limitation rule was important.

The accused was charged under s. 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act for agreeing to offer bribes to officials of a foreign state-owned airline and the country’s Minister of Civil Aviation in order to secure a contract for biometric facial recognition technology.

The Crown alleged that the accused conspired with corporate executives and intermediaries to arrange payments and other benefits to influence the tender process.

The defence argued that no actual bribe to a specific foreign official was proven and that Canada lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The court held that the offence under the Act includes agreements or conspiracies to offer bribes and does not require proof that a bribe was ultimately delivered.

Applying the “real and substantial connection” test, the court found sufficient jurisdiction because a Canadian company, Canadian agents, and significant conduct related to the scheme were based in Canada.

The accused was convicted.

The applicant sought declarations that the Canada Act 1982 prevents Canada from consenting to United Kingdom legislation altering the rules of succession to the Crown and that provisions barring Catholics or those married to Catholics from ascending to the Crown are of no force or effect.

The court addressed preliminary issues of justiciability and standing.

Relying on prior authority, the court held that the rules of royal succession form part of the constitutional structure of Canada as a constitutional monarchy and are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

The court further held that the applicant lacked standing because he had no personal stake and raised only a hypothetical concern.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order compelling the Commissioner of Competition to provide further particulars of alleged misleading representations pleaded under paragraph 74.01(1)(a) of the Competition Act concerning premium text messaging services.

The defendants argued that the statement of claim failed to identify the specific alleged misrepresentations and related details necessary to prepare their defences.

The court held that the pleading sufficiently described the alleged deceptive marketing practices and that the requested particulars largely sought evidentiary details, which are properly obtained through discovery rather than particulars.

Given that the alleged representations could number in the hundreds or more and concerned matters within the defendants’ knowledge, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the request for further particulars.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of manslaughter after fatally stabbing the victim during a drunken altercation in his apartment following a party.

The evidence established that the offender concealed a knife prior to a confrontation and inflicted eight stab wounds during a fight in which the victim was beating him.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a concealed knife in a fist fight, multiple stab wounds including a fatal heart wound, initiation of the conflict, flight from the scene, and the offender’s alcohol abuse and lack of insight.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth (18 years old), lack of criminal record, severe assault by the victim at the time of the stabbing, remorse, and strong rehabilitative prospects.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence of six years.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision which dismissed his complaint that his termination was tainted by anti-union animus.

The applicant argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard of proof and made several evidentiary errors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision was reasonable, applied the correct legal test, and was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

A costs endorsement following an eight-day family law trial in which the respondent husband was successful on essentially all issues and had previously made a settlement offer more favourable than the ultimate result.

The husband sought $42,500 in costs.

The court reduced certain amounts related to settlement conferences and considered the applicant’s financial circumstances, including ongoing responsibility for the matrimonial home, support of the parties’ university‑attending child, and spousal support obligations due to the respondent’s illness.

Balancing these factors, the court fixed costs in favour of the respondent at a reduced amount payable from the applicant’s share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The defendant sought costs following a motion that combined a motion to strike the statement of claim and a motion for summary judgment.

The court had previously indicated the original pleading disclosed no viable cause of action and permitted the plaintiff to file a fresh amended statement of claim with costs thrown away.

The defendant claimed over $115,000 in costs, arguing the amended pleading introduced entirely new causes of action and rendered extensive preparation for the summary judgment motion wasted.

The court held that the costs relating to the summary judgment motion should be treated as costs in the cause because it was unclear whether the motion would ultimately have succeeded or whether it had been premature under the principles articulated in Combined Air Mechanical Services v. Flesch.

Costs for the successful motion to strike were fixed and ordered payable immediately, while the balance relating to summary judgment was deferred pending the outcome of the action.

Following the striking of a statement of claim alleging conspiracy, defamation, misfeasance in public office, and related torts against numerous defendants, the court determined the quantum of costs payable on the successful pleadings motion.

Multiple defendant groups sought more than $205,000 in partial indemnity fees and over $20,000 in disbursements.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the fairness principles articulated in Boucher, the court considered duplication of effort among separately represented defendants with similar interests.

The court concluded that substantial overlap existed between certain defendants’ legal work and therefore limited recovery to a single set of costs for those parties.

Reduced costs totalling $108,000 in fees plus $10,560 in disbursements were awarded, subject to HST.

Following the breakdown of a 16‑year marriage, the court addressed property division, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant sought unequal division of the matrimonial home and enforcement of several written agreements purporting to allocate the property to her.

The court held the agreements unenforceable due to lack of independent legal advice, uncertainty, and non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and found that equalization would not be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent established entitlement to spousal support primarily on a needs basis due to a serious psychiatric condition limiting employability.

The court ordered ongoing and retroactive spousal support, modest retroactive child support, and equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application, which alleged that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit discriminated on the basis of marital and family status.

The Tribunal had found it lacked jurisdiction because the benefit was an integral part of taxation and thus excluded from the definition of 'services' under section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias in the Tribunal's reconsideration process and concluding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Code was reasonable.

The respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review for delay.

The applicant sought to review a decision from December 2000, having applied for reconsideration six times until November 2007, and commenced the judicial review in January 2011.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for delay and granted the motion, finding extreme delay, a vague explanation, and real possibility of prejudice to the Tribunal's process.

The applicant sought an adjournment of its application for judicial review to develop new evidence.

The Divisional Court addressed preliminary issues and exercised its discretion under the Judicial Review Procedure Act to decline to hear the application.

The court found the matter was not a review of a quasi-judicial decision, primarily concerned commercial interests, would require the court to perform a trial function, and that the applicant lacked standing.

The application was quashed without a determination on the merits.