David Wilson

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 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 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 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.

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.

The applicants, comprising raw milk producers and consumers, challenged federal and provincial prohibitions on the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk, alleging violations of their freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the applicants' belief in raw milk's health benefits did not constitute a profound moral dimension for freedom of conscience, the religious interference was trivial and insubstantial, and the equality claim lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis.

The court further held that even if Charter violations were established, they would be justified under section 1 due to the compelling public health objective of preventing milk-borne illnesses, which pasteurization effectively mitigates.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Easton Aiton-Poore, who pleaded guilty to six offences including possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited handgun.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the commercial nature of the drug operation, the significant quantities of drugs and money seized, and the dangerous combination of drugs and firearms.

Mitigating factors included the offender's young age (23), lack of prior criminal record, guilty pleas demonstrating remorse and acceptance of responsibility, supportive family, and productive engagement in pre-sentence custody (PSC) programming.

A key issue was a disagreement between Crown and Defence counsel regarding enhanced credit for PSC served during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite an initial "joint submission" for a global 12-year sentence.

The court clarified that such a disagreement negates a true joint submission.

Ultimately, the court imposed a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, reducing it by 3 months to account for the harsh conditions of COVID-19 related PSC, emphasizing that such conditions are collateral consequences impacting the sentence's fitness.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, using forged fentanyl patches, and obtaining merchandise by false pretence.

He participated in a scheme where he returned forged patches to a pharmacy under Ontario's patch-for-patch program to obtain new fentanyl patches, which he then trafficked.

The court rejected the argument that the trafficking was merely sharing among prescription holders, finding it to be a sophisticated commercial operation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the extreme dangers of fentanyl, the court sentenced the offender to 26 months in penitentiary for trafficking, with concurrent 18-month sentences for the forgery and false pretence offences.

RBC General Insurance Company ("RBC") brought a motion to set aside or stay two Writs of Seizure and Sale, totaling $17,387.70, obtained by Kuhansea Balasubramaniam (the "Insured").

The Writs arose from an Arbitration Order of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario ("FSCO") for income replacement benefits.

RBC argued that the amounts in the Writs were incorrect and that the License Appeal Tribunal ("LAT") had exclusive jurisdiction over the benefit quantum.

The Insured contended that RBC could not unilaterally reduce benefits and that the Master lacked jurisdiction to set aside the Writs.

The Master found that the Registrar's filing of the Arbitration Order was an administrative act, not an order subject to a Master's review under Rule 37.14(3).

Consequently, the Master lacked jurisdiction to set aside the Writs.

While acknowledging jurisdiction to stay the Writs under the Courts of Justice Act, the Master refused to do so, finding no oppressive, vexatious, or abusive conduct by the Insured in enforcing a statutory right.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a sentence of one year, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court noted the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts, including overcoming addiction, securing employment, and caring for her children and ailing mother.

Finding this to be an exceptional case where a lengthy custodial sentence would impair rehabilitation, the court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by two years of probation.

Michael Davani, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to exclude evidence of his self-identification and association with the deceased, Kwado Mensah.

Davani alleged Charter violations (ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b)), involuntariness of his statement, unreliability of dock identification, and inadmissibility of Mensah's self-identification as hearsay.

The court found no detention for ss. 7, 9, 10(b) purposes when Davani identified himself, but a s. 8 Charter breach for an unobtrusive pat-down search.

Applying s. 24(2) factors, the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the state conduct not serious and the impact on Charter interests minimal.

Davani's self-identification was deemed voluntary, the dock identification admissible with a limiting instruction, and Mensah's self-identification admissible as circumstantial evidence or a traditional hearsay exception.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to resolve outstanding issues regarding pre-judgment interest and costs following a settlement of a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court held that the recent amendment to the Insurance Act regarding pre-judgment interest was substantive and did not apply retroactively, meaning the 5% rate under Rule 53.10 applied.

The court also ordered the defendants to pay a portion of the costs the plaintiff incurred in a successful accident benefits arbitration, as the defendants benefited from the resulting deduction.

Finally, the court reduced the overall costs of the tort claim to ensure proportionality.

At a preliminary inquiry into a drug trafficking investigation ("Project Dominion"), the Crown sought committal for trial of four defendants on various charges related to cocaine trafficking.

Derouche and Fagan were committed on consent.

Maharaj and Williams resisted committal on charges of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking on November 13-14 and November 20, 2014.

Williams also faced a charge of possession of ammunition contrary to a prohibition order.

The Crown's case focused on the defendants' association with a commercial premises at 905 Dillingham, Unit 16, which police evidence established was being used as a storage and manufacturing location for large quantities of cocaine and crack cocaine.

The preliminary inquiry justice found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit Maharaj and Williams for trial on the trafficking charges but discharged Williams on the ammunition charge due to insufficient evidence linking him to the ammunition found at a separate residence.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on five counts of robbery with an offensive weapon against both defendants, with additional charges against Moore for disguising with a bandana and possession of a weapon.

The central issue was identification of the perpetrator(s) based on circumstantial evidence.

The Crown's theory was that Moore committed the robberies with Stanojevic as the getaway driver.

The court admitted similar fact evidence regarding the robberies and found sufficient circumstantial evidence linking Moore to all robberies.

Moore was committed to trial on all counts.

Stanojevic was committed on the August 21 robbery but discharged on the August 12 robbery, as there was insufficient evidence linking her to that incident.

The plaintiff insurer brought a summary judgment motion seeking repayment of over $100,000 in income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the defendant insured.

The overpayments occurred because the insured received retroactive long-term disability and Canada Pension Plan benefits that should have been deducted from the IRBs.

The court found that the insurer failed to provide proper statutory notice for most of the overpayments, limiting its recovery to a 12-month period.

The court also held that while it had jurisdiction to order repayment of the overpayments, it lacked jurisdiction to vary the existing Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) consent order governing the ongoing IRB payments.

The insurer was awarded $11,150 without costs.