David Wilson

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 defendants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the applicable pre-judgment interest rate and the quantum of costs following a settlement in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The Divisional Court held that the legislative amendment reducing the pre-judgment interest rate was substantive and did not apply retroactively.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's decision to award the plaintiff unrecovered costs from a statutory accident benefit arbitration, finding that the recovery of those benefits constituted a benefit to the defendants in the tort action.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences arising from the possession of a loaded handgun found under a pillow in his bedroom.

At the time, he was bound by a weapons prohibition order and had a previous criminal record including firearms offences.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of five years' imprisonment.

After applying credit for pre-trial custody, the accused was sentenced to 28 months going forward, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and an $800 victim surcharge.

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.

The applicant was injured in three motor vehicle accidents (2003, 2005, 2006) and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator found that claims arising from the 2005 and 2006 accidents were procedurally barred due to non-compliance with notice and limitation periods.

However, the applicant was found to be catastrophically impaired as a result of the 2003 accident, having sustained a marked impairment in the domain of adaptability due to severe depression and psychotic features.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing housekeeping and home maintenance benefits but dismissed claims for attendant care, a psychological treatment plan, and a special award.

TD Home and Auto Insurance Company applied to vary a consent order to deduct long-term disability benefits received by the insured from her income replacement benefits (IRB).

The arbitrator granted the variation, finding that the insured's subsequent receipt of disability benefits from Sunlife constituted a material change in circumstances and new evidence.

The arbitrator held that the disability benefits were deductible under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as payments under an income continuation benefit plan.

The arbitrator also rejected the insured's argument that her legal expenses incurred in obtaining the Sunlife benefits should be deducted from the collateral benefits amount, as the Schedule does not provide for such a deduction.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breach of probation.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence regarding the self-identification of the person he was associating with, and by relying on in-court identification.

The appeal court found that the admissible evidence, considered as a whole, was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court also upheld the consecutive sentence, noting that the breach of a court order shortly after release from custody was egregious and warranted a consecutive sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy farm operation and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy restricting the transfer and merger of milk quota.

They wished to permanently transfer the newly acquired quota to their home farm without renovating the purchased facilities or milking there for the required five years.

The Tribunal found the DFO's quota transfer restrictions valid and authorized by the Milk Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an exemption, finding the appellants' reasons did not justify circumventing the policy.

However, the Tribunal reduced the conditional penalty for failing to return the cows to the purchased farm from a 20% quota reduction to a 10% reduction.

The appellants, dairy farmers, purchased an ongoing dairy operation but only acquired a fraction of the associated land.

They moved the purchased herd to their home farm under a temporary shared facilities agreement, intending to renovate the purchased farm.

They later abandoned renovation plans and sought an exemption from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) policy to permanently merge the quotas at their home farm.

The DFO denied the exemption and ordered the cows returned to the purchased farm, imposing a 20% quota reduction penalty if they failed to comply.

The Tribunal upheld the DFO's denial of the exemption, finding the appellants' desire for efficiency did not justify circumventing quota transfer policies.

However, the Tribunal found the 20% penalty disproportionate and reduced it to 10%.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to quash a residential search warrant and exclude the resulting evidence in a cocaine trafficking prosecution.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the governing search warrant authorities, including the totality-of-the-circumstances assessment for confidential informant information and the compelling-credible-corroborated framework.

The informant's recent first-hand tip was found sufficiently detailed, credible, and corroborated by police database checks and surveillance.

The court held that the issuing justice could reasonably have authorized the warrant and dismissed the application.

The Insurer raised a preliminary issue that the Applicant was statute-barred from claiming housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, while the Applicant brought a motion for interim income replacement benefits.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer's refusal to pay housekeeping benefits was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act, which the Applicant missed.

On the motion for interim benefits, the Arbitrator held that despite the Insurer's breach of s. 37 of the SABS in terminating income replacement benefits, interim benefits are a discretionary remedy.

Given the Applicant's unexplained five-year delay in challenging the termination and lack of evidence of urgent financial need, the motion for interim benefits was dismissed.

During a criminal trial for drug importation, the accused challenged a second strip search conducted by RCMP officers after a prior search by border officials had already occurred.

The search was conducted in a cell with the door open and video surveillance operating, without supervisory authorization and without confirming whether a prior strip search had already taken place.

The court held that the second strip search was conducted as a matter of routine and lacked reasonable grounds, breaching the accused’s s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search.

Applying the framework from Grant, the court concluded that the seriousness of the institutional breach outweighed the other factors.

The accused’s recorded police statement, obtained shortly after the search, was excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, possession of stolen license plates, and breach of probation arising from an incident on January 31, 2014, in a parking lot behind a bar in Hamilton.

Two plainclothes police officers observed a vehicle with three occupants and initiated a liquor license investigation.

When the officers approached, the vehicle accelerated and fled the scene.

The central issue was identification of the driver.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of stolen plates and breach of probation but acquitted on the dangerous driving charge due to insufficient evidence regarding the officer's precise location at the time of acceleration and uncertainty about whether the officer was directly in front of the vehicle.

The Association of Ontario Chicken Producers (AOCP) brought a motion for limited party (intervenor) status in an appeal by a dairy producer against the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO).

The AOCP argued it had an interest in the constitutional and Competition Act issues raised by the appellant regarding supply management policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the AOCP failed to demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the appeal, which concerned milk quota transfer policies.

The Tribunal also noted that granting status shortly before the scheduled hearing would cause prejudice and delay.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the scheduled arbitration proceedings pending the claimant's participation in an insurer's examination by an occupational therapist.

The claimant had recently submitted an addendum report indicating a substantial increase in her attendant care needs due to new symptoms, including blackouts.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that procedural fairness required the insurer to have an opportunity to re-assess the claimant's attendant care needs in light of the new developments before proceeding to arbitration.

The appellant was convicted as a party to robbery and aggravated assault, but acquitted of assault with a weapon, after luring two victims to an apartment stairwell where they were attacked and robbed by four armed men.

On appeal, the appellant argued the verdicts were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the appellant knew of the armed robbery and likely injury, but was not satisfied he knew the plan involved the actual or threatened use of weapons.

A solicitor brought an application to set aside a consent order referring the solicitor’s account to an Assessment Officer for assessment.

The solicitor argued the Assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction and that consent did not prevent the court from setting aside the order.

The court held that the only dispute raised by the client concerned the quantum of the account and that the assessment properly fell within the officer’s jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act.

The interests of justice did not justify setting aside the consent order.

The application was dismissed and the client was awarded costs.