David Wilson

The accused was arrested at gunpoint while walking with a known suspect who was believed to be armed.

The arresting officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, rendering the subsequent search incident to arrest unlawful and in violation of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Furthermore, the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) rights by conducting a strip search at the station without first providing him an opportunity to consult with counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the police conduct demonstrated a disturbing ignorance of Charter standards, and the cumulative effect of the breaches warranted the exclusion of the seized drugs and cash under s. 24(2).

The offender, Kevin Nguyen, was sentenced following convictions for drug trafficking and firearms offences, including possession of over 1.2 kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The sentencing judge considered aggravating factors such as the offender's prior criminal record involving drugs and weapons, and the dangerous combination of firearms and commercial-level drug operations.

Mitigating factors included the offender's steps toward rehabilitation while in custody, strong family support, and the exceptionally harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention he endured at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight and a half years, reduced by 1,214 days of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 1,888 days left to serve.

The Applicant, Zhong Zhang, faced charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine.

He brought three Charter applications: a Section 11(b) application for unreasonable delay, a Section 8 Garofoli challenge to judicial authorizations, and a Section 7 application alleging a failure by the affiant to make notes.

The court dismissed the 11(b) application, finding the delay was attributable to the defence's late and voluminous filings.

For the Section 8 challenge, the court, applying R. v. Maric, limited the Applicant's standing to only two December 29 ITOs where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and found no Section 8 violation as the affiant made full, frank, and fair disclosure.

The Section 7 application was also dismissed, as the court found the affiant complied with note-taking duties and no Charter breach was established.

All applications were dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an associate justice's costs orders and an order dismissing a motion to increase the pre-judgment interest rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the costs orders and noted that leave to appeal the pre-judgment interest order was not required.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The Crown brought a motion to admit excerpts of audio-video recordings from police cells, containing alleged party admissions by the accused, Jordan Nicholas and Reymon Duncan-Jones.

The defence opposed, arguing issues of context, audio quality, and potential prejudice.

Applying the principles from R v Schneider, the court found the evidence relevant and admissible as party admissions, noting that such evidence is rarely excluded.

The court determined that concerns regarding context and quality were matters of weight for the jury, to be addressed through appropriate jury instructions.

The Crown's application was granted.

This is an application by the accused for a stay of prosecution due to unreasonable delay, pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial completion was 31.4 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court considered two discrete events as potential exceptional circumstances: a mistrial declared in March 2022 and delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the mistrial was an exceptional circumstance, as the trial judge in the mistrial had assigned no blame to any party.

The court also found that a six-month period of delay was attributable to the pandemic, acknowledging inherent court system delays even pre-pandemic.

After deducting these periods, the net delay fell within the Jordan timeframe.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident tort claim, the plaintiffs brought a motion for costs and an increase in the pre-judgment interest rate.

The court assessed the costs of the civil action, reducing the amount claimed to account for expenses incurred due to a trial adjournment requested by the plaintiffs.

The court also considered whether the tort defendant should contribute to the costs the plaintiffs incurred in parallel statutory accident benefits (SABs) proceedings, ultimately ordering a $20,000 contribution because the SABs settlements significantly reduced the defendant's tort exposure.

The plaintiffs' request to increase the pre-judgment interest rate to offset statutory deductible increases was dismissed.

The applicant sought repayment of income replacement benefits (IRBs) that the insurer had suspended and deducted due to an alleged overpayment and non-compliance with requests for post-accident income information.

The Tribunal found that while the insurer could not rely on section 287 of the Insurance Act or section 52 of the Schedule to unilaterally reduce benefits based on an alleged error without an agreement or order, it was entitled to suspend benefits under section 33 of the Schedule due to the applicant's failure to provide requested income documentation.

The applicant's claims for repayment and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit (IRB) but disputed the quantum.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hold a hearing on the undisputed issue of entitlement.

On quantum, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's accounting report, applying the Divisional Court's decision in Surani to find that post-accident sub-contractor expenses should be apportioned to the entire business, not just the applicant's share.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for physical therapy as reasonable and necessary, but denied the applicant's claim for an award, finding the respondent did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits.

The applicant sought to rescind a settlement agreement entered into with the respondent insurer regarding statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the settlement was not full and final and did not comply with Regulation 664.

The Tribunal found the settlement was valid and governed by Regulation 664.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the applicant was not entitled to rescind the settlement because he failed to provide written notice of rescission and did not repay the settlement funds as required by section 9.1(7) of Regulation 664.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) applied for judicial review of a Coroner's preliminary ruling in an inquest into a fatal helicopter crash.

The Coroner had ordered the disclosure of certain aggregate and specific information about witness statements obtained during the TSB's investigation.

The TSB argued this information was protected by the statutory privilege in s. 30 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act (CTSA).

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding the Coroner's decision unreasonable as it conflicted with the broad statutory privilege and the mandatory procedure for disclosure under s. 30(5) of the CTSA.

The plaintiff sought an order to discontinue a putative class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations under the Securities Act.

Due to developments in jurisprudence regarding limitation periods and the inability to find a representative plaintiff for the remaining viable primary market claims, the plaintiff concluded the action was no longer viable.

The court granted leave to discontinue the action on a without-costs basis and approved the proposed notice plan.

Supplemental reasons issued to correct an error in the court's previous decision (2022 ONSC 12).

The court corrected paragraph 4 to clarify that Lloyds should not have been listed as a party challenging the forum of the action.

Vale Canada and its primary insurer, RSA, brought actions against numerous excess insurers for coverage of environmental remediation costs incurred primarily in Ontario.

Several foreign excess insurers brought motions challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court or seeking a stay based on forum non conveniens in favour of an action in New York.

The court found it had jurisdiction over all moving insurers except North River Insurance Company, concluding that the insurers were 'carrying on business' in Ontario by participating in a global insurance program for an Ontario-based company.

The court declined to stay the actions for forum non conveniens, finding Ontario to be the 'centre of gravity' for the dispute.

Claims by Vale Canada against two UK insurers were stayed pending arbitration.

The defendants sought costs following their successful motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and psychiatric assessments.

The plaintiff opposed the costs, arguing the defendants' counsel delayed serving motion materials.

The court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, noting the plaintiff opposed any examination, even virtual ones.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff was partially successful on a motion to compel a further and better affidavit of documents and sought partial indemnity costs of $4,575.87.

The defendants argued for 50% of the claimed costs due to divided success.

The court rejected a strict mathematical reduction for divided success but noted the plaintiff's evidentiary failings on the unsuccessful relief.

Costs were fixed at $3,748.82 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Defence counsel brought an application to be removed as solicitor of record for the accused after accepting a full-time contract position.

The accused and the Crown opposed the application.

The trial was scheduled to commence in less than two months, and the accused was unable to retain alternate counsel for the scheduled dates.

The court applied the Cunningham factors and found that adjourning the trial would likely result in a delay of over a year, potentially triggering a successful Jordan application and negatively impacting the accused's rehabilitation.

The application was dismissed as withdrawal would cause serious harm to the administration of justice.

The plaintiffs brought an action against multiple insurers for indemnity regarding environmental damage.

Several foreign defendants failed to deliver statements of defence within the required time limits, and one was noted in default.

The defendants sought an extension of time to defend or bring jurisdictional motions, arguing the court should wait for the outcome of a parallel proceeding commenced by one of the insurers in the United States.

The court refused to delay the Ontario proceeding, finding no prejudice to the defendants in requiring them to respond timely, and ordered the defendants to deliver their statements of defence or motion records by a specified deadline.

The plaintiff, suing his former lawyers for professional negligence and breach of contract, brought a motion under Rule 30.06 for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought production of correspondence, legal billing records, internal law firm documents, and settlement communications with insurers.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the defendants to produce documents relating to legal billing and accounting, as well as communications with insurers regarding the settlement of the tort and accident benefits claims, finding these relevant to the pleadings.

The request for internal documents and other correspondence was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Craig Colton pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and possession offences.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence (24-30 months), while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court determined Colton was a street-level trafficker, not mid-level, and considered his personal circumstances, including childhood trauma, addiction, and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge concluded that an upper reformatory sentence was fit and that a conditional sentence, with strict conditions including home confinement and electronic monitoring, would adequately achieve sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence while fostering rehabilitation.