David Wynne Wright

The appellants, a public sector union and its officers, challenged the constitutionality of back-to-work legislation (Bill 178) that ended a five-week faculty strike at Ontario's 24 colleges of applied arts and technology in 2017.

The Court of Appeal found that the legislation limited the appellants' s. 2(d) Charter right to freedom of association by ending a lawful strike, departing from the application judge's finding of no substantial interference.

However, the court held that the limitation was justified under s. 1 of the Charter, finding that Ontario had a pressing and substantial objective of resuming classroom instruction to protect students' academic year, that the means were rationally connected and minimally impairing, and that the substitution of neutral interest arbitration for strike activity rendered the effects proportionate.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) and two individuals applied for a declaration that the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Labour Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, which ended a five-week college strike, infringed their freedom of association rights under section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and sought damages.

The Crown in Right of Ontario and the College Employer Council argued the Act did not infringe the Charter or was justified under section 1.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Act did not substantially interfere with meaningful collective bargaining, as the parties were at an impasse.

Alternatively, the court held that even if there was an infringement, it was justified under section 1, given the pressing and substantial objective of resuming college instruction, the rational connection of the legislation, its minimal impairment (by substituting a neutral arbitration process), and its proportionality.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a challenge to a sealing order granted in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Laurentian University of Sudbury.

The sealing order covered confidential correspondence between the University and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, which Laurentian University argued contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could jeopardize its restructuring efforts.

Parties opposing the sealing order contended there was no evidentiary basis for it.

Applying the two-branch test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court found that the disclosure posed a real and substantial risk to the University's future viability, that the "commercial" interest extended to the broader community, and that no reasonable alternatives existed given ongoing mediation.

Consequently, the court maintained the confidentiality of the exhibits and the existing sealing order.

The accused, Dushane Peart, was found guilty of possession of a loaded handgun following a shooting incident.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on video evidence and the accused's pre-arrest statement.

The court applied principles for identity proof in circumstantial cases and dismissed a mistrial application brought by the defence, finding no prejudice despite initial communication issues regarding the Crown's strategy for proving identity.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a loaded handgun, ammunition, and illegal drugs) found during a vehicle search incident to arrest and a subsequent strip search at the police station, alleging violations of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding both the vehicle search (justified as incident to arrest and an inventory search) and the strip search (justified as incident to arrest and for custodial safety) were lawful.

The court also upheld the validity of the telewarrants used for a later search of the vehicle, finding the grounds for their issuance and the resort to the telewarrant process were reasonable.

The accused, C.M.L., was convicted of child abduction and the Crown sought a fitness assessment for sentencing.

Two psychiatrists opined she was unfit due to delusional disorder affecting her ability to communicate with counsel or represent herself.

The court, applying the "limited cognitive capacity" test from R. v. Taylor and R. v. Whittle, found that C.M.L. understood the proceedings and their consequences, and was capable of communicating with counsel but chose not to.

Her disruptive behaviour and refusal to cooperate were deemed deliberate strategies rather than indicators of unfitness.

The court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to find her unfit for sentencing and proceeded with the sentencing hearing.

The accused, C.M.L., was charged with child abduction under s. 282(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Throughout her jury trial, she was self-represented and highly disruptive, leading to her repeated exclusion from the courtroom.

The court appointed amici curiae to assist in ensuring a fair trial, including cross-examining a key Crown witness and delivering a jury address on the accused's behalf.

The court also ruled on amendments to the indictment and clarified the meaning of "custody order" under s. 282(1) of the Criminal Code, finding that an interim order requiring the child's return to Ontario constituted a custody order.

The court affirmed the necessity of an expanded role for amici in exceptional cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice, distinguishing it from the Supreme Court's guidance in Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association of Ontario.

The defendant, C.M.L., was convicted by a jury of abducting her own child in contravention of a custody order, contrary to s. 282 of the Criminal Code.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment, less time served, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives.

The aggravating factors included the deliberate and ongoing nature of the offence, the defendant's persistent defiance of court orders, the lack of information regarding the child's safety and well-being, and the devastating impact on the child and the father.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody due to the defendant's continued concealment of the child.

A preliminary inquiry into eight charges arising from the shooting of a victim in a Toronto parking lot on July 16, 2014.

Three co-accused were charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, firearm offences, and assault with a weapon.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the victim's testimony and circumstantial evidence including phone records and security camera footage.

Defence counsel conceded the sufficiency of evidence identifying each accused's role at the scene.

The court applied the Sheppard test and found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on all charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraudulent activity carried out between July 1, 2012 and January 7, 2015, resulting in over $2.4 million in funds received.

The majority of monies were obtained through a large and sophisticated fraud involving the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program affecting over 900 victims, with additional funds obtained through cheque cashing fraud.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years less credit for pre-sentence custody, with a restitution order of $1.5 million.

The court found numerous aggravating factors including the accused's prior criminal record for fraud, the long duration of the fraud, the devastating impact on victims, and the damage to the integrity of the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

The court rejected gambling addiction as a mitigating factor given the accused's minimal rehabilitation efforts.

A nineteen-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to four counts of robbery but admitted to six knifepoint robberies of young women committed over a two-month period in winter 2013-2014.

The offender drove the getaway vehicle while his co-accused committed the robberies.

The Crown sought eighteen months to two years less a day imprisonment, while the defence sought six to nine months with potential credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The court imposed ninety days intermittent imprisonment on each count, three years probation with strict conditions, 240 hours community service, and an increased victim surcharge of $8,000, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation prospects for a youthful first offender with no prior record.

In a criminal trial involving multiple allegations of sexual assault by an anesthesiologist against sedated patients during surgery, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility and scope of defence expert evidence concerning the effects of psychotropic drugs on perception and memory.

Applying the framework from R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification, followed by a cost‑benefit analysis of probative value versus prejudice.

The court held that three defence experts—including two anesthesiologists and a psychiatrist—met the threshold admissibility requirements.

Although limitations existed regarding aspects of their expertise, those limitations affected weight rather than admissibility.

The experts’ testimony was admitted subject to general limits preventing opinions outside their expertise, including speculation about surgical practices or motives for the alleged offences.