David J. Levy

The offender, a support worker at a group home, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after assaulting a non-verbal resident with severe autism.

The Crown sought 30 days in jail, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized the need for denunciation and deterrence given the victim's vulnerability and the offender's breach of trust.

A 90-day conditional sentence was imposed, followed by one year of probation, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The applicant, charged with drug and firearm offences following a robbery investigation, brought a Charter application alleging his s. 8 rights were breached by a police search of a residence.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked a sufficient evidentiary nexus connecting the applicant to the searched premises.

Consequently, the search violated the applicant's s. 8 rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the serious nature of the Charter-infringing conduct and the high expectation of privacy in a residence outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The evidence seized during the search was excluded.

The Crown applied to admit a video statement of a deceased complainant under the principled exception to the hearsay rule in a historical sexual assault case.

The court found the statement lacked procedural reliability as it was not under oath and the complainant was not warned about the consequences of lying.

Substantive reliability was also lacking due to the complainant's mental health issues, potential motive to fabricate, and implausible details.

The corroborative evidence from siblings and the accused was insufficient to overcome the hearsay dangers.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking answers to outstanding undertakings and refusals made by The Personal Insurance Company, a statutory third party, regarding its denial of coverage for the defendant Jouvaine M. Stennett.

The Personal argued that coverage issues are distinct from liability proceedings and that a statutory third party is not required to disclose information about its coverage position during discovery.

The court held that while coverage issues are distinct from liability, the information sought is relevant to issues engaged in the litigation and necessary for efficient case management.

The court ordered The Personal to provide answers to the undertakings and refusals within 30 days and awarded costs of $5,000 to the plaintiffs.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of publishing an intimate image without consent after posting explicit photos and videos of his former partner on Reddit.

The victim suffered significant emotional distress, anxiety, and professional disruption as a result of the unauthorized publication.

Although the Crown sought a four-month custodial sentence, the court emphasized the principle of restraint given the offender's youth, lack of a criminal record, and extensive rehabilitative efforts.

Ultimately, the court suspended the passing of sentence, placing the offender on probation for 18 months with strict conditions, and declined to make DNA or sex offender registration orders.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought a catastrophic impairment designation under Criterion 4 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule for a traumatic brain injury.

The applicant relied on a GOS-E rating of Severe Disability provided by the respondent's occupational therapist.

The Tribunal found that under section 45(2) of the Schedule, a GOS-E assessment must be conducted by a physician or neuropsychologist.

Because the applicant did not provide a qualifying medical opinion to support the occupational therapist's findings, and the respondent's neurologist found a 'good recovery', the applicant failed to meet his onus.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with excessive blood alcohol content.

On appeal, he raised several Charter arguments (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) concerning the lawfulness of the traffic stop, the roadside screening demand, the reliability of the Approved Screening Device (ASD) results, and the delay in accessing counsel.

The court dismissed all arguments, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's rulings, including factual findings based on credibility and the proper application of legal principles regarding police authority and Charter rights.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and applied for accident benefits 14 months later.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was precluded from bringing a claim due to the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, as the respondent failed to provide the applicant with an application for benefits (OCF-1) and there was confusion regarding the applicable policy and coverage.

The applicant is not precluded from bringing a claim.

The accused was found unconscious in a running vehicle on a snowbank, exhibiting signs of severe intoxication.

Charged with impaired operation and operating over 80 mg%, the defence argued a Charter s. 10(b) breach, claiming the accused's waiver of the right to counsel was not informed or unequivocal due to his condition, and challenged the impairment evidence.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and reliability.

It held that the police fulfilled their duty to inform the accused of his right to counsel, and his repeated declinations were unambiguous, not triggering a further duty to inquire despite his intoxication.

The court concluded that the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the accused's physical and mental faculties were completely impaired by alcohol.

The Charter application was dismissed, and findings of guilt were entered for both counts, with the over 80 mg% count stayed under the rule against multiple convictions.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought an ongoing Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) and a catastrophic impairment designation.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's pre-existing mental health and substance abuse issues were aggravated by the accident, resulting in a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The applicant was awarded the ongoing IRB.

However, the adjudicator determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment, as he did not suffer marked impairments in at least three of the four functional domains under the AMA Guides.

The applicant, a minor, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments arising from a motor vehicle accident involving her father and brothers.

The applicant was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant was not involved in an accident and was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was not involved in the accident, she qualified as an 'insured person' because she was a dependent who suffered psychological injuries as a result of the physical injuries sustained by her father in the accident.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the psychological injuries were caused by intervening post-accident family dynamics, noting the respondent's own expert diagnosed the applicant with an accident-related anxiety disorder.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,200 for a psychological assessment but denied the claim for lost educational expenses as they were not incurred prior to the accident.

The appellant, Orlando Tassone, appealed his convictions for stunt driving and using improper tires under the Highway Traffic Act, alleging ineffective assistance from his paralegal who he claimed prevented him from testifying.

He sought a new trial or, alternatively, a sentence reduction.

The court found that the appellant failed to prove ineffective assistance, noting his unreliable memory and the paralegal's thorough preparation and tactical decision not to call him as a witness, which the appellant had accepted.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the original fine appropriate given the circumstances.

Maxwell Johnson was convicted of trafficking cocaine, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He was initially sentenced to six months' imprisonment concurrently.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in applying sentencing ranges for street-level trafficking to a 'share trafficking' scenario and in reducing the weight given to his first offender status.

The Court of Appeal found errors in principle regarding the application of sentencing ranges and the consideration of first offender status.

The appeal was allowed, and a six-month conditional sentence was substituted for the original custodial sentence, to be served concurrently, followed by one year of probation.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for 11 treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the plans as not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence, including reports from various assessors and treating practitioners.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury and granted the $7,808.97 treatment plan for occupational therapy, along with interest.

The remaining 10 treatment plans, including those for orthotics, case management, rock climbing therapy, medical cannabis, and various physical therapies, were dismissed for lack of supporting objective medical evidence.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide a compliant denial notice for the non-earner benefit until November 26, 2016, and ordered payment of the benefit from the end of the 26-week deductible period until that date.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for ongoing non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The claim for a medical benefit was also dismissed as the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary, given the applicant's extensive pre-existing back issues.

A claim for a special award under O. Reg 664 was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule based on a spinal cord injury.

The respondent denied the designation, arguing that the applicant's ASIA Impairment Scale grade was not yet "permanent" because the injury had the potential to improve over the initial 18-24 months.

The adjudicator found that the applicant met the definition of catastrophic impairment, noting that her ASIA Impairment Scale score of "D" satisfied the criteria and there was no evidence she would improve to a normal "E" score.

The adjudicator rejected the respondent's argument that a 24-month waiting period was required, as paragraph 1 of section 3.1(1) contains no such temporal requirement.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing the street and applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits, treatment plans for chiropractic and physiotherapy services, and various out-of-pocket expenses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove entitlement to attendant care benefits and most of the claimed expenses, as there was insufficient medical evidence linking her reported chemical sensitivities, light sensitivity, and fibromyalgia to the accident.

However, the Tribunal found the chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans, as well as expenses for Tylenol, to be reasonable and necessary.

The application was allowed in part.

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his wife, whose body was found near a gas tank on their property.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on motive, opportunity, and post-offence conduct, including the accused's destruction of his wife's poetry.

The defence argued the victim may have interrupted a gas theft or been killed by an alternate suspect with whom she was having an affair.

The court found the investigation had tunnel vision and failed to adequately explore other possibilities.

Concluding that the accused's guilt was not the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, the court found the accused not guilty.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits, cost of examinations, and a non-earner benefit.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain, a psychological impairment, or a pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the Heath test to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant, Roger Craig Short, charged with first-degree murder, sought to admit evidence from a failed "Project Somerton" undercover police operation (a "Mr. Big" scenario) where he did not confess.

The defence argued the statements were admissible under the Edgar exception, as unique evidence from a failed "Mr. Big" project, or as evidence of consciousness of innocence.

The court dismissed the application, finding the Edgar exception inapplicable due to lack of spontaneity and no undertaking to testify.

The "Mr. Big" argument was rejected as the project was not "unbeatable" and lacked the inducements/threats seen in Hart.

While the court initially considered admitting the evidence to counter Crown's post-offence conduct evidence, the Crown subsequently abandoned significant portions of its post-offence conduct evidence, rendering the Project Somerton evidence lacking sufficient probative value for admission.