Davin Charney

The appellants, federal inmates, sought to certify a class action against the Crown after correctional officers seized t-shirts they had designed to commemorate inmates who died in custody.

The motion judge refused certification, finding that the inmate grievance process under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was the preferable procedure for resolving the dispute.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellants argued the motion judge erred in her preferability analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the framework from AIC Limited v. Fischer and made no error in principle in concluding that the grievance process could provide meaningful redress and access to justice.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon following an altercation with a City of Mississauga bylaw enforcement officer who attended the defendant's property to investigate a property standards complaint.

The defendant claimed he was the victim and that the officer assaulted him.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as unreliable and incredible, finding numerous internal inconsistencies and evasiveness.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, corroborated by video evidence, the 911 call, and police observations.

The court found the defendant deliberately struck the officer in the face with a camera he was holding, causing a significant injury that left a permanent scar.

The defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon.

Following the court’s earlier decision declining to certify a proposed class proceeding, the parties addressed the issue of costs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs had received funding from the Law Foundation of Ontario, which indemnified them against adverse cost awards.

The parties and the Law Foundation agreed that the costs of the certification motion would be payable to the defendant.

The court issued an endorsement reflecting the parties’ consent that costs be paid to the defendant in the amount of $50,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The Crown charged two defendants with possession of prohibited weapons, controlled substances, and firearms offences.

Following a Charter voir dire and trial, the co-accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant Ball pleaded guilty to possession of brass knuckles and controlled substances but maintained not guilty pleas to firearms charges involving a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum handgun.

The central issue was whether the handgun was a functioning firearm as defined in the Criminal Code or a disabled/inoperable item.

The Crown relied on photographs, text messages, and expert evidence.

The defendant testified the handgun had been rendered inoperable and he was attempting to defraud acquaintances by misrepresenting it as a real firearm.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the item was a functioning firearm and dismissed the firearms charges.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine and cannabis marijuana, possession of a prohibited weapon, and firearm-related offences arising from items seized during the execution of search warrants.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrants under section 8 of the Charter and the accused Olsson also challenged her arrest under section 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants, establishing both spatial and temporal nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched.

The court also found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Olsson.

Both Charter applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with mischief, assault on police, obstruction of police, and assault with intent to resist arrest arising from his conduct during a protest at Toronto City Hall against budget cuts.

The Crown called seven police officers; the defence called the accused and two witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of assault on police (pushing PC Hopkinson) and obstruction of police, but acquitted him of mischief and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The court also dismissed Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding no unlawful detention, no unreasonable search, and no lost evidence constituting a Charter breach.

Following a successful civil action involving police conduct and Charter-related issues, the court addressed the plaintiff’s request for costs.

The plaintiff sought legal fees exceeding the damages award obtained at trial.

The court found the requested fees disproportionate to the modest recovery and concluded the matter, while important, was not legally complex.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the hourly rate and compensable hours, finding the file had been over-lawyered.

Costs were awarded at a reduced amount reflecting proportionality while acknowledging the significance of the issues and imbalance in bargaining power.