David Jason Rose

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused previously found unfit to stand trial on charges of mischief and failure to comply.

The accused suffers from major neurocognitive disorder (dementia) and alcohol use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, supported by psychiatric evidence, that the accused is permanently unfit to stand trial due to progressive cognitive decline.

Furthermore, the Board found that the accused no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, as his risk of violence is low and can be managed under the Mental Health Act.

The Board ordered that the accused be referred back to the court for a recommended stay of proceedings.

The Ontario Review Board convened a hearing to reconsider the accused's fitness to stand trial, following a remand from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The accused, who has an intellectual developmental disorder, had previously been found unfit.

Based on updated psychiatric assessments and applying the Supreme Court of Canada's recent framework in Bharwani, the Board accepted the joint submission that the accused is now fit to stand trial.

The Board found that the accused has a reality-based understanding of the trial process and can meaningfully participate with appropriate court accommodations.

The accused was referred back to the court for next steps.

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the disposition of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for a terrorism hoax.

The hospital and the Attorney General argued that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and sought a continuation of his detention order.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including the accused's lack of recent violent history and his successful integration into the community over several years.

The Board concluded that the evidence of a significant threat was speculative and did not meet the legal threshold.

Consequently, the accused was granted an absolute discharge.

The accused was previously found unfit to stand trial on charges including being unlawfully in a dwelling and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The hospital requested an early hearing, asserting that the accused was now fit.

The Ontario Review Board heard evidence from the treating psychiatrist that the accused's condition had improved due to medication optimization and the use of visual cues.

The Board accepted the joint submission of the parties, finding that the accused had a reality-based understanding of the proceedings and was able to instruct counsel.

The Board concluded that the accused was fit to stand trial and ordered his return to court.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay the respondent tenant $12,000 for illegally collected rent.

The tenant had signed a new lease with the appellant, who had purchased the property, doubling the rent without a Notice of Rent Increase.

The Board found the sole purpose of the new lease was to increase the rent, making the increase void ab initio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's conclusions were based on findings of fact that were not subject to appeal and that the Board applied the correct legal principles.

The defendants were successful on a motion and sought costs.

The parties had agreed during the hearing that if the defendants were successful, they would be entitled to partial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and ordered costs of $35,000 to the defendants based on the agreement.

Following the quashing of the defendant's appeals, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the defendant's conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The court reviewed the standard for elevated costs and found the defendant's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $6,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' appeal from orders setting aside a certificate of stay and directing the enforcement of a writ of possession for a property.

The defendants had failed to pay rent under a lease agreement tied to an uncompleted purchase and sale transaction.

The court found that the orders appealed from were not stayed by the filing of a notice of appeal, as they were not orders under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also concluded that the appeals were manifestly devoid of merit and quashed them, directing the sheriff to enforce the writ of possession.

In an estate dispute involving a will challenge and alleged resulting trust over joint bank accounts, the applicants sought an interlocutory order restricting an adult child’s access to joint accounts held with the deceased.

The court applied the presumption of resulting trust articulated in Pecore v. Pecore, which places the burden on the surviving joint account holder to establish that the deceased intended a gift of survivorship.

The court found that the respondent’s evidence rebutting the presumption was thin and raised a serious issue to be tried.

Given the risk of depletion of estate assets before trial, the court limited the respondent’s withdrawals from the accounts to $2,000 per month pending trial.

Costs were ordered in the cause.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to properly consider reducing his risk through chemical castration.

He sought a long-term offender designation combined with a section 810.2 recognizance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's condition intractable and that he could not be controlled within the duration of a long-term sentence.

The Court reaffirmed that a section 810.2 order cannot be used as a stop-gap for highly dangerous offenders who fail to meet the long-term offender criteria.

The moving defendants sought an order requiring the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff acknowledged having insufficient assets in Ontario but asserted that it was impecunious and unable to post security.

The court held that the evidentiary threshold for establishing impecuniosity was high and required detailed financial disclosure, including evidence of the financial circumstances of the corporation’s principals.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient documentary or financial evidence demonstrating either corporate impecuniosity or the inability of its shareholders to raise funds for security.

Given the lack of proof of impecuniosity and the neutral merits of the claim, the court ordered that security for costs be posted and stayed further steps in the proceeding pending determination of the amount and timing.

The appellant appealed his life sentence for attempted murder following a vicious knife attack on his roommate.

The appellant, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, refused treatment and was deemed a continuing danger to the community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not err in imposing a life sentence given the brutality of the crime, the appellant's severe mental illness, and the ongoing risk he posed to public safety.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a roadside stop in the early morning hours of October 14, 2012.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing readings of 179 and 173 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on two grounds: (1) the breath technician failed to record the expiry date of the alcohol standard solution used in the Intoxilyzer 8000C device, and (2) the tests were not taken as soon as practicable as required by statute.

The court found that the technician's testimony regarding the suitability of the standard solution was sufficient, and that the total delay from roadside stop to breath testing was reasonable and within statutory requirements.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicants sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring them a related employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants argued the Board improperly refused an adjournment, erred in relying on an agreement signed by an allegedly incapacitated principal, disregarded evidence, and gave improper legal advice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions on the adjournment and the related employer declaration were reasonable, and that there was no evidence of prejudice from any alleged legal advice.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that found a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding the adjudicator appointed for a police disciplinary hearing.

After leave to appeal was granted, the respondent officer retired, which by operation of the Police Services Act ended the disciplinary proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case because the substratum of the dispute had disappeared and the issues did not raise questions of broad public importance.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking to allow collateral attack on Employment Standards Act orders, alternatively seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, and alternatively seeking a declaration that certain sections of the Employment Standards Act were unconstitutional.

The accused had been charged with failing to comply with orders to pay outstanding wages to employees.

The accused argued he was impecunious and unable to meet the statutory requirement to pay or post a letter of credit to appeal the orders.

The court rejected all three applications, finding that the rule against collateral attack applied, that no abuse of process had occurred, and that the relevant statutory provisions did not violate the Charter.

The applicants sought to stay an ongoing coroner's inquest into the deaths of a mother and two children in a fire, pending judicial review of the coroner's refusal to expand the scope of the inquest and call certain witnesses regarding social services in the Jane-Finch community.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR MacDonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured completing the inquest.

The applicant, a police officer, brought an application for judicial review to prohibit a retired superintendent from continuing as an adjudicator in a disciplinary proceeding against him.

The adjudicator had previously presided over two other disciplinary hearings involving the applicant and had expressed opinions regarding his character.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that an informed person would conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias due to the adjudicator's pre-existing knowledge of the applicant's disciplinary history.

The applicant police officer sought a stay of his disciplinary proceedings pending an application for judicial review.

The judicial review application alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the adjudicator, who had previously presided over other hearings involving the applicant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious issue to be determined, the applicant failed to establish sufficient irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in proceeding with the hearings without further delay.

The appellants appealed six Small Claims Court decisions assessing damages on default judgments for payday loans.

The Small Claims Court judge awarded partial judgment in each case but provided no reasons for reducing the amounts claimed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, holding that the complete absence of reasons precluded meaningful appellate review.

The matters were remitted to a different judge for a new assessment of damages, as the appellate court lacked sufficient information to determine the appropriate amounts.