Deena Baltman

The accused faced 17 counts relating to alleged violence against his wife and two children between 2003 and 2015.

The court found the wife to be an unreliable witness and declined to convict on any counts based solely on her uncorroborated testimony.

However, the court found the two children to be credible and reliable witnesses.

Relying on the children's testimony, the court found the accused guilty of six counts of assault against his wife and children, and not guilty of the remaining eleven counts.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant had not paid rent in over a year and owed more than $15,000.

On appeal, the tenant raised new factual allegations, including claims of being drugged and tortured by CSIS agents, which were not raised before the Board.

The Divisional Court held that appeals from the Board are restricted to questions of law.

Because the tenant only raised new factual issues, the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and the eviction order was directed to be enforced.

The applicant applied to exclude a loaded firearm found in his vehicle, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The police claimed they stopped the applicant for a traffic violation and searched his car for identification after he refused to provide it.

The court rejected the officers' testimony as fabricated, finding they lacked lawful authority for the arrest and search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the egregious nature of the police misconduct, which included misleading the court.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her former employer, a housing cooperative, engaged in reprisals against her for enforcing her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions, including extending her probation and terminating her employment, were motivated by her health and safety complaints.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's findings of fact and legal analysis were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal that found it breached capacity limits under the Liquor Licence Act and imposed a 15-day licence suspension.

The appellant conceded its patio was overcrowded but argued the Tribunal erred in law regarding the extent of the breach, reasons, fairness, and sanction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, supported by reasons, and the 15-day suspension appropriate given previous similar infractions.

The tenant, who suffers from mental illness, appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to accommodate the tenant's disability by refusing to grant a second adjournment, which prevented her from fully and fairly participating in the process.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The applicant, who was convicted of impaired driving, brought a motion under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of state-funded counsel for his appeal.

The court found that the appeal lacked merit, as the trial judge had ample grounds to reject the applicant's defence of involuntary intoxication.

Furthermore, the applicant, a trained educator, was capable of representing himself, and he failed to demonstrate a lack of financial means.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action for medical negligence against Dr. Ibrahim following a Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT) surgery performed on Ms. O'Neill-Renouf.

Immediately after the surgery, Ms. O'Neill-Renouf experienced severe pain in her right thigh, which was later diagnosed as an injury to her right obturator nerve, resulting in permanent pain and physical limitations.

The plaintiffs alleged the injury was caused by incorrect needle placement during the surgery, constituting a breach of the standard of care.

The defendant argued the injury was due to edema (swelling) tracking naturally from the surgical site.

The court found the plaintiff's theory to be the only reasonable explanation, concluding that Dr. Ibrahim was liable for the damages due to a breach of the standard of care.

The accused, Justine Ordonio, sought to adduce expert evidence from Todd Barron regarding the tendency of certain interview techniques to produce unreliable or false information, personal characteristics increasing suggestibility, and the implications of techniques used in this case for reliability.

The court dismissed the application, finding the evidence not necessary to assist the jury, as common sense and judicial instructions were sufficient.

Furthermore, the proposed expert lacked the required objectivity and did not fully review the evidence.

The accused, Justine Ordonio, sought to adduce ante mortem hearsay statements made by the deceased, Teresa Hsin, regarding a third-party suspect, Tim Chiu, to establish motive and disposition.

The court examined three categories of statements, considering their admissibility under the state of mind exception or the principled approach to hearsay.

While necessity was established due to the deceased's unavailability, the court found the statements lacked threshold reliability.

This was attributed to the confrontational and strategic nature of one conversation, the deceased's compromised state in hospital during another, and the ambiguity and lack of specific fear of violence in statements relayed by the deceased's mother.

The motion to admit the hearsay evidence was dismissed.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application to exclude his post-arrest statement to police, alleging breaches of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter and arguing the statement was involuntary.

The court found a minor s. 10(b) breach occurred when an officer questioned the accused en route to the station before he spoke to counsel, but admitted the subsequent 13-hour interview statement under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed the remaining Charter claims and found the statement voluntary, concluding the accused was not overborne by the length of the interview or the officer's use of the Reid technique, but rather chose to speak after being confronted with overwhelming incriminating evidence.

The defendant in a sexual assault trial applied under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity with another man, Steve.

The defence theory was that the complainant fabricated the assault to protect her relationship with Steve, given inconsistencies in her statements about her relationship with Steve and DNA evidence.

The court found the evidence admissible, ruling that the defendant met the preconditions under s. 276(2) and that the evidence had significant probative value regarding the complainant's credibility and the defendant's right to make full answer and defence, without invoking the "twin myths."

The appellant, Fawzi Kamakh, appealed his conviction for criminal harassment under s. 264(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was based on three grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the trial judge's refusal to allow further cross-examination of the complainant after a Browne v. Dunn issue arose, and insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice due to counsel's conduct given the overwhelming evidence, deeming the cross-examination issue moot as the Crown did not rely on the reply evidence, and affirming that the mens rea elements for criminal harassment were met, as the appellant knew or was wilfully blind to the complainant's harassment and fear for her safety.

The plaintiffs, current and former female police officers, sought to certify a class action against the Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and Association for systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment.

The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that labour arbitrators and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario had exclusive jurisdiction.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction, as the claims arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement and the Police Services Act, which provide a comprehensive dispute resolution scheme.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if it had jurisdiction, the claims did not disclose a viable cause of action under common law, as human rights legislation precludes independent civil actions for discrimination and sexual harassment.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of importing five kilograms of opium hidden in his suitcases upon returning from Iran.

The court found the offender acted as a courier for commercial profit, but noted his lack of a criminal record, strong community support, and history of gainful employment as mitigating factors.

Balancing the gravity of the offence with the offender's circumstances, the court imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with importing heroin after arriving at Pearson International Airport.

Border Services Officers suspected he was inadmissible and, after conducting a targeted internet search about drug routes from Uganda, asked him if he had swallowed drugs without providing Charter cautions.

The accused admitted to swallowing drugs and subsequently expelled heroin pellets.

The court found the questioning had escalated beyond routine screening into a focused investigation, resulting in a detention that breached the accused's rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

In a proposed class action alleging systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment within the Waterloo Regional Police Service, the parties brought several pre-certification motions.

The plaintiffs' motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination by the Chief of Police and the Association President were dismissed.

The defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs' expert evidence and portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits were deemed premature and deferred to the certification motion, though the expert opinion portion of the report was excluded.

During a first-degree murder trial where identification was the sole issue, the defence sought to allow the jury a closer physical view of the accused's eyes.

The only eyewitness had described the shooter as having "colourful eyes" and the defence argued the current courtroom configuration prevented the jury from properly assessing this evidence.

The Crown opposed, contending the request was a formal "view" under s. 652 of the Criminal Code or amounted to calling new evidence.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, clarifying that a jury's observation of an accused's physical appearance constitutes "real evidence" and is distinct from a formal "view." The court ruled that the jury should be permitted a closer view of the accused's eyes to ensure a fair trial and proper assessment of the evidence, noting that the accused's right to a fair trial should not be contingent on courtroom layout.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to export cocaine.

The conspiracy involved an agreement to use a courier to export nearly 9 kilograms of cocaine to the UK, but the offender abandoned the plan within a week of its inception.

The court considered the short duration of the conspiracy and the offender's positive rehabilitation efforts as mitigating factors, but noted the serious nature of the offence and the large quantity of drugs involved.

The offender was sentenced to 5.5 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody and house arrest.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to exclude evidence under the Charter and challenge the voluntariness of a statement.

The accused argued that a brief interaction with police in a stairwell months before the murder constituted an arbitrary detention, and that obtaining his phone number from Ontario Works violated his s. 8 rights.

The court found that the stairwell encounter was a brief, consensual interaction that did not amount to a detention, and the statement was voluntary.

The court also held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone number obtained from Ontario Works.

The applications were dismissed and the evidence was ruled admissible.