3 total
The court struck the plaintiff's negligence claim against the Crown, finding no private law duty of care exists regarding the training of police officers.
The defendant, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ), brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's claim, arguing there was no private law duty of care owed to the plaintiff and that the claim failed to establish a reasonable cause of action against HMQ.
The plaintiff alleged HMQ was negligent in training police officers, specifically regarding their duties under the Police Services Act and Mental Health Act, leading to the plaintiff's injuries after being released by an Amherstburg police officer.
The court granted HMQ's motion, finding no prima facie private law duty of care owed by HMQ to the plaintiff, either statutorily, by analogy to previous cases, or under the Anns/Cooper analysis, due to a lack of foreseeability and proximity.
The court also determined that police training is a policy matter, not an operational one, and that imposing such a duty would have negative public policy implications, making HMQ a vicarious insurer for all police interactions.
The action against HMQ was dismissed without leave to amend.
A corporate accused's application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay was dismissed for failing to establish irremediable prejudice.
A corporation charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to secure a ladder, resulting in a worker's fall, brought Charter motions seeking a stay of proceedings pursuant to sections 11(b) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay, abuse of process, and denial of the right to a fair trial.
The court dismissed the motions, finding that while delay occurred, it did not breach the corporation's fair trial rights.
The court held that pre-charge delay is generally not protected by section 11(b) unless there is bad faith, and that a corporate accused must establish irremediable prejudice to succeed on such applications.
The court found no irremediable prejudice and that institutional delay was within acceptable guidelines.
Bundled cash seized in traffic stop forfeited as proceeds of unlawful activity.
The applicant sought forfeiture of cash seized during a traffic stop under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.
The court held that, on a balance of probabilities, the bundled cash was proceeds of unlawful activity or an instrument of unlawful activity, relying on the circumstances of seizure, the presence of marijuana-related indicia, the packaging of the money, and unchallenged expert opinion evidence concerning drug-trafficking cash practices.
The court rejected the explanation that the funds were intended for a legitimate tobacco purchase, finding that evidence inconsistent with the ordinary payment practices of the business.
A forfeiture order was granted.
