David Wilson

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.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits, cost of examinations, interest, and an award following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month for feeding, along with the costs of an occupational therapy situational assessment and an in-home attendant care assessment.

Claims for a triage assessment, an award under Regulation 664, and costs were dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a pre-hearing conference to address allegations that counsel breached a prior confidentiality order regarding restricted access motions.

The Tribunal found no intentional disclosures of confidential material by either party.

To ensure clarity moving forward, the Tribunal issued a procedural direction ordering that all materials related to the restricted access request, including third-party materials, remain confidential and sealed.

The Tribunal also established a formal motion process for third parties seeking participant or intervenor status on the restricted access motion.

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 applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and cost of examinations following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month retroactively to October 2009, along with interest.

The applicant was also awarded the costs of specific occupational therapy and attendant care assessments.

Claims for a triage assessment, a Regulation 664 award, and costs were dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) provide the Tribunal with eleven categories of documents pursuant to subsection 16(7) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act.

The Tribunal interpreted subsection 16(7) as requiring the regulatory decision-maker to forward the essential elements of the decision-making record, not to provide broad documentary discovery.

The Tribunal found that the DFO had already discharged its statutory obligation by providing the relevant audit reports, correspondence, and board minutes that informed its decision.

The motion was dismissed as an improper attempt at broad documentary discovery.

The Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) brought a motion to define the scope of a statutory stay arising from an appeal by Skotidakis Goat Farm against a DFO decision imposing retroactive assessments and other penalties.

The Tribunal held that the statutory stay did not suspend DFO's regulatory authority to conduct ongoing inspections and audits outside the scope of the appealed decision.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal also ordered the Appellants to preserve original production records and post financial security of approximately $3.3 million (representing two months of average milk purchases) pending the final disposition of the appeal.

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

After a 16-day hearing, the presiding arbitrator passed away before rendering a decision.

The insurer objected to proceeding on the record and requested a hearing de novo, arguing that credibility was at issue.

The arbitrator, exercising delegated discretion, ordered that the matter proceed on the record using the transcripts from the incomplete hearing, citing the overriding mandate to resolve disputes fairly, quickly, and cost-efficiently, and noting the extensive delays and impending closure of the Dispute Resolution Services.

The moving defendants sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against them regarding a three-vehicle intersection collision.

The collision occurred when a northbound driver made a left turn in front of a southbound driver (the moving defendant), causing a collision that subsequently struck the plaintiff's stopped vehicle.

The court found partial summary judgment appropriate and used its fact-finding powers to determine liability.

The court apportioned 90% liability to the left-turning driver and 10% liability to the moving defendant for failing to slow down when approaching the intersection with an obstructed view.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision which held that the insurer's notice letters seeking repayment of income replacement benefits were invalid.

The insurer had attempted to claw back overpayments after the respondent became eligible for CPP benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding it was reasonable for the Delegate to conclude the notices were defective for claiming beyond the 12-month statutory cap and for failing to be substantially correct.

The insurer was ordered to refund the clawed-back monies with interest.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits arising from three motor vehicle accidents.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was more successful overall, having been deemed catastrophically impaired and awarded housekeeping benefits, despite mixed success on other issues.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant his expenses, applying a 3:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, reduced by 20% to reflect the mixed success.

The insurer was ordered to pay $46,890.88 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The appellants, Dairy Farmers of Ontario and Dairy Farmers of Canada, appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to intervene as added parties in an application challenging the constitutionality of mandatory milk pasteurization laws.

The Master had dismissed the motion based on the Supreme Court's decision in Northwestern, finding that allowing the appellants to intervene would violate their impartiality as administrative bodies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Master erred in applying Northwestern, as the underlying application was a constitutional challenge to a statute, not a judicial review of the appellants' own decisions.

The Court found the appellants met the criteria under Rule 13.01 and could make a useful contribution given their specialized expertise.

The accused was charged with trafficking drugs and breaching probation after smuggling marijuana, hashish, and fentanyl into a correctional centre by secreting them inside his body.

At trial, the accused conceded the acts but raised the defence of duress, testifying that a gang-affiliated inmate threatened to harm him and his brother if he did not comply.

The court found an air of reality to the duress claim and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had a safe avenue of escape.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The moving party insurer sought to stay a FSCO Director's Delegate decision pending judicial review.

The underlying decision denied the insurer the right to recover approximately $10,000 in overpaid income replacement benefits resulting from the insured's retroactive receipt of CPP benefits.

The court granted the stay, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court found a serious issue to be tried, that the insurer would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to the insured's limited income, and that the balance of convenience favoured the insurer because the insured was already receiving her proper ongoing benefits.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2013 and sought statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, claiming he suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The Applicant had a history of severe pre-existing psychological and physical impairments from prior accidents in 2002.

The Insurer denied the catastrophic impairment designation and various medical benefits, arguing that any impairment was due to the pre-existing conditions.

The arbitrator found that the 2013 accident materially contributed to the Applicant's psychiatric condition, worsening his impairment to a Class 4 marked impairment in activities of daily living.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment and awarded the disputed medical benefits and examination costs, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain relief and assessment.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but the Insurer was ordered to pay the Applicant's arbitration expenses and interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pretrial application to exclude his formal statement to police, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the statement was voluntary, as the police interrogation techniques did not overbear the applicant's will.

However, the court found that the police breached ss. 10(a) and 10(b) by failing to inform the applicant of the deceased's name or specific details of the murder charge, which prevented him from meaningfully instructing counsel.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

The applicant sought payment for three assessments related to a catastrophic impairment determination following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the situational and community occupational therapy assessments were reasonable and necessary to determine the functional impact of the applicant's psychological condition, and that the $2,000 fee for each was reasonable under the Schedule.

The triage assessment was denied for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664, finding that the insurer had not acted unreasonably in relying on file reviews and providing medical reasons for its denials.

The applicant's request for costs was also dismissed.

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.