Darrel N. Hotz

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing two family members while experiencing persecutory delusions.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered expert psychiatric evidence indicating the accused's ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia, impulsivity, and sexually disinhibited behaviour.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board concluded the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

A Detention Order at the hospital was issued, as community living was deemed premature while his medication regimen is being optimized.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on multiple counts of assault and threatening.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the panel reviewed psychiatric reports indicating the accused suffers from schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, lacks insight, and experiences grandiose and paranoid delusions.

The panel found that the accused remains a significant threat to the safety of the public.

A detention order was issued with discretionary privileges, including accompanied passes on hospital grounds and escorted passes in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including assault and uttering threats.

Applying the fitness test from R v Bharwani, the Board concluded the accused remains unfit to stand trial due to persistent delusions and lack of insight into his schizophrenia.

However, the Board found he is not permanently unfit, as he has shown some improvement and could potentially become fit with further treatment.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at a high-secure forensic psychiatric facility to manage his significant threat to public safety.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a class action for delay pursuant to section 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff had issued a Notice of Action in September 2020 and a Statement of Claim in October 2020, serving it in March 2021.

However, since serving the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff's counsel had taken no steps to advance the action, nor had they communicated with the defendants' counsel or responded to the dismissal motion.

The court found that none of the statutory requirements for advancing the proceeding (such as filing a certification record or agreeing to a timetable) had been met by the first anniversary of the proceeding's commencement.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action for delay, also dispensing with the requirement for public notice of dismissal due to the existence of a parallel class action with similar claims.

This criminal trial concerned James Hutchinson, charged with seven offences including assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement of children, and choking an adult.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the adult complainant and the children via transcribed statements, and the defendant.

The adult complainant's evidence was found unreliable due to alcohol consumption and inconsistencies.

The defendant's evidence was largely accepted as credible.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault causing bodily harm against one child due to excessive force (leaving bruises), three counts of forcible confinement of the children in a cold cellar (deemed excessive discipline), and one count of assault by choking the adult complainant, despite the defendant's claim of attempting to ensure her safety.

The defendant was acquitted of two counts of assault causing bodily harm against the other two children due to insufficient evidence of unreasonable force or injury.

The plaintiffs brought a consent motion in writing to approve the dismissal of a putative class proceeding against Facebook and Google on a without costs basis.

The action alleged that Facebook scraped call and text logs from users of the Messenger app on Android devices.

Following the denial of certification in a parallel British Columbia action, the representative plaintiffs no longer wished to proceed due to the risk of adverse costs.

The court approved the dismissal, finding it was not brought for an improper purpose, no private benefit was received to the detriment of class members, and notice to the class was unnecessary.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of assaulting an unrelated child and attempting to abduct his own child, whom he had not seen in over a year.

The offender, who suffers from mental illness and represented himself at trial, mistakenly grabbed the unrelated child before grabbing and pulling his own child towards a car.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay two other findings of guilt, and sentenced the offender to 12 months in custody (net 4 months after pre-sentence credit) followed by three years of probation.

The Crown brought a count-to-count similar act application during a jury trial for attempted abduction, seeking to use evidence from one count to prove criminal intent on another.

The self-represented accused made no submissions, but amicus curiae and s. 486.3 counsel raised concerns about the timing of the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence had moderately high probative value, its prejudicial effect was very high because the application was raised after the defence had closed its case, potentially impacting defence strategy and cross-examination.

The plaintiff class sought approval of class counsel fees, disbursements, and honoraria for the representative plaintiff and another class member following a settlement in a privacy class action against SiriusXM.

The court approved the requested $75,000 in class counsel fees, finding them fair and reasonable given the risk undertaken and the time expended.

The court also approved $5,000 honoraria for the two class members due to their active involvement and exposure to costs risks.

However, the court reduced the requested disbursements from $75,000 to $55,657.36, rejecting class counsel's attempt to claim firm overhead as a disbursement.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 payable by the moving parties.

Following the dismissal of a proposed $240 billion class action regarding a data breach, the successful defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be limited to a partial indemnity scale for a pleadings motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations of professional misconduct against defence counsel, combined with their egregious violations of pleading rules and massive expansion of the claim, justified costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded $725,000 to Capital One and $500,000 to Amazon Web.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a $240 billion class action against a financial institution and a cloud storage provider following a massive data breach perpetrated by a former employee of the storage provider.

The plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence, and negligence, arguing that the defendants misappropriated and misused the class members' personal information by retaining and aggregating it beyond its initial purpose.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim egregiously contravened the rules of pleading and failed to disclose any legally viable causes of action against the corporate defendants.

The pleading was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The court reconsidered a previous costs award of $112,500 made against the plaintiffs following the dismissal of their refusals and interlocutory injunction motions in a proposed class action regarding a data breach.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants' costs claim reflected over-lawyering and sought costs in the cause.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' submissions, finding their motions were unnecessary, overreaching, and deplorably prosecuted.

The court confirmed the original partial indemnity costs award of $112,500 and awarded an additional $12,500 for the costs submissions, for a total of $125,000 payable to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to approve a settlement in a class proceeding against SiriusXM regarding the alleged unlawful collection and use of personal information from vehicle purchasers.

The proposed settlement provided for a $150,000 cy-près payment to the Automobile Protection Association to fund a privacy best practices report, with no direct compensation to class members.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the significant risks in the litigation, including the lack of evidence of actual harm or data breach, and the strong defences available to the defendants.

The settlement was approved.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval to settle and discontinue their claims against the defendant GitHub.

GitHub, an American corporation, had challenged the court's jurisdiction.

After an initial adjournment to address jurisdictional concerns, the plaintiffs submitted revised materials.

The court approved the settlement, finding that discontinuing the action against GitHub was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class given the litigation risks, costs, and the fact that the remaining defendants had sufficient financial strength to meet any damages.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action regarding a data breach sought court approval of a settlement with the defendant GitHub.

The court declined to approve the settlement as proposed, noting that it could not make a binding ruling on its own jurisdiction based on the consent of the parties, and that the substantive merits of the settlement (essentially a discontinuance) did not support approval at this stage.

At the parties' request, the motion was adjourned sine die.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes only.

The action alleged that the defendants improperly collected and used the personal information of individuals who purchased or leased vehicles equipped with satellite radios.

The court reviewed the criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues existed, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and there was an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion was granted and the action was certified for settlement purposes.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for assault on a bar patron.

The incident occurred inside the Less Than Level bar in Oakville on March 16, 2013.

The defendants were charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, with one defendant also charged with breach of probation.

The Crown relied on testimony from two sober witnesses: the bouncer and the bar manager, who observed the defendants repeatedly kicking the victim while he lay defenseless on the ground.

The defendants presented no evidence.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault and one guilty of breach of probation based on the credible testimony of the sober witnesses.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts arising from a home invasion: break and enter with intent to commit robbery, forcible confinement of an 86-year-old victim, and assault of a police officer resisting arrest.

The offender also acknowledged four additional counts.

The victim was confined for 4-5 hours, threatened with a knife held to her throat, physically assaulted, and suffered lasting psychological trauma.

The offender had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse, and prior criminal convictions.

A forensic psychiatric assessment found the offender to be at high risk to re-offend.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence on top of 9 months pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were imposed.

A costs decision following a trial on retroactive child support.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis in the amount of $21,752.73 after obtaining a judgment for $5,000.00 in retroactive child support arrears.

The applicant sought no costs.

The court found the respondent was the successful party and had made compliant offers to settle that were as favorable as the trial result.

However, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, citing proportionality concerns and the applicant's financial circumstances as the sole custodial parent with no other income source.

The court awarded costs of $5,000.00, set off against the child support arrears owed.