David Wynne Wright

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, facing multiple firearm and drug charges, brought an application to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's dock during his trial, arguing the dock would negatively impact the presumption of innocence and impede interaction with counsel.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the customary position of the accused is in the dock and that juries are adequately instructed on the presumption of innocence to prevent any prejudice.

In the context of a grievance arbitration, the parties agreed to the disclosure of the grievor's WSIB information to Employer counsel.

The Arbitrator issued a consent direction ordering the disclosure subject to strict confidentiality conditions, including that the documents only be provided to Employer counsel, not be copied further, be used solely for the preparation of the Employer's case, and be returned to Union counsel at the conclusion of the proceedings.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to accommodate the grievor's disability with respect to her workload.

Following a prior decision directing the union to provide further particulars of specific accommodation requests that were denied, the union submitted further particulars.

The arbitrator found that the employer had complied with all medically supported accommodation requests and that the new particulars did not establish a breach of the duty to accommodate.

A new allegation regarding environmental sensitivities was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as it was unrelated to the workload grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer sought the preliminary dismissal of five individual grievances advanced by the union, arguing they were barred by a prior memorandum of settlement that resolved a union grievance concerning excessive workloads and the implementation of a new software system.

The arbitrator reviewed the particulars of each grievance to determine if they raised materially the same issues as the settled union grievance.

Four of the grievances were dismissed as they were either abandoned, raised identical workload issues, or were derivative of the settled issues.

The fifth grievance was dismissed with respect to workload and stress claims, but the union was directed to provide further particulars regarding a specific failure to accommodate claim.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that granted a travel pay benefit to social workers travelling to satellite clinics.

The hospital argued it was denied procedural fairness and that the award was unreasonable due to insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the summary process under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act provided adequate procedural fairness.

The court also held that the arbitrator's reasons, when read with the record, adequately explained the decision to award a compromise benefit based on replication principles, rendering the outcome reasonable.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal decision finding that the employer and union violated the Pay Equity Act by agreeing to reduce the wages of a female-dominated job class.

The employer argued the reduction was a temporary measure to avoid contracting out work and was justified under exceptions in the Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Act prohibits reducing wages of employees who have achieved pay equity, and that the Tribunal reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order the union to contribute to the wage adjustments.

The Union alleged that the Employer breached a Memorandum of Settlement by delaying the creation of a lieu bank for affected employees until August 2017.

The arbitrator issued directions allowing employees to apply lieu days to unpaid leave taken since the settlement date and permitting extensions for those unable to use their days by the deadline due to exceptional circumstances.

The arbitrator also clarified that employees on temporary assignment or secondment to another Ministry as of the settlement date are entitled to the lieu days if they return to the Ministry by December 31, 2018.

The union filed a grievance seeking indemnification for the grievor's legal costs incurred in defending a criminal charge of assault against an inmate, of which he was acquitted.

The collective agreement provided for indemnification where an employee is found not guilty 'because of acts done in good faith'.

The employer argued the arbitrator must independently determine if the acts were done in good faith, while the union argued the arbitrator must defer to the criminal court's reasons.

The arbitrator held that the specific language of the collective agreement linked the entitlement to indemnification to the reasons for the criminal court's acquittal.

Since the trial judge explicitly found the grievor acted in good faith, the condition for indemnification was met.

The grievance was allowed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

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.

During a grievance arbitration concerning the discharge of a correctional officer for alleged excessive force, the employer sought to call a Ministry employee as an expert witness on use of force.

The union objected to the expert providing an opinion on the specific facts of the case, arguing that the tribunal did not need expert assistance and that the proposed expert lacked impartiality due to his employment and prior assistance to the Crown at the grievor's criminal trial.

The arbitrator ruled the expert evidence admissible, applying the Mohan and WBLI tests.

The arbitrator found that the technical aspects of use of force in a correctional facility met the necessity criterion, and that the expert's employment and prior involvement went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility, as there was no evidence he was unwilling or unable to discharge his duty to be independent and impartial.

The union grieved the discharge of a correctional officer who was terminated for using excessive force against an inmate during a strip search.

The incident, captured on video, showed the inmate tossing his sweater toward the grievor, who reacted by punching the inmate in the back of the head and taking him to the ground.

The arbitrator found that the inmate posed no threat and that the grievor's use of force was unnecessary, unlawful, and contrary to his training.

Given the grievor's short service, failure to take responsibility, and the serious nature of the misconduct, the grievance was dismissed and the discharge upheld.

The employer proposed to call an expert witness to provide opinion evidence on whether the grievor, a correctional officer, complied with use of force regulations and policies during an incident with an inmate.

The union brought a motion to exclude the portion of the expert's evidence relating directly to the application of force by the grievor.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that the expert opinion evidence is admissible and denied the union's motion.

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.

The Ministry brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Union's grievances regarding excessive workload for ODSP Caseworkers failed to make out a prima facie case for a breach of the health and safety provision of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Union's particulars, if assumed to be true, were capable of supporting the conclusion that the workload was excessive and constituted a breach of the collective agreement.