Deena Baltman

Following the offender's conviction for procuring and exercising control over a prostitute, the court ordered a Pre-Sentence Report.

Quebec probation services requested a lengthy extension and communicated in French.

The court accommodated the delay by rescheduling the sentencing hearing but issued an endorsement ordering that the report be filed by the extended deadline and in English, as the trial was conducted in English.

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine, sought release on bail pending trial.

He lacked a suitable surety and proposed to act as his own surety through the Bail Program, while living with and working for a friend.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that his release was justified on the primary grounds, as he lacked meaningful roots in the community and the proposed employment and residence were not reliably confirmed.

The dismissal was without prejudice to returning with the friend to confirm the offers.

The applicant sought a review of her detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

She was charged with three counts of robbery with a firearm, which carries a reverse onus for bail.

The applicant proposed a new surety plan involving two friends.

The court found the proposed sureties to be unreliable and ineffective, noting the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's alleged attempts to mislead police.

The application for release was dismissed.

On an interim parenting motion, the applicant sought sole custody consistent with a s. 30 assessment recommending sole decision‑making authority and expanded access to the respondent.

The respondent sought interim sole custody or, alternatively, a shared parenting arrangement.

The court held that recommendations of an assessor should generally not be implemented on an interim basis absent urgent circumstances and that the status quo had largely been created by unilateral conduct limiting the respondent’s involvement.

Finding both parents capable and loving but engaged in high conflict, the court ordered a temporary 50/50 week‑about parenting schedule with decision‑making authority remaining with the applicant, along with communication and dispute‑resolution provisions including parenting coordination.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine into Canada, the Crown sought a ruling on a voir dire that two statements made by the accused to border officers were voluntary and admissible.

The defence argued the accused’s limited English proficiency meant she lacked an operating mind and that the officers’ notes were an unreliable record because the statements were not audio or video recorded.

The court held the accused demonstrated sufficient comprehension of English during her interactions with officers and after receiving legal advice, and therefore the statements were not involuntary due to language barriers.

Despite concerns about the absence of recording equipment, the officers’ contemporaneous notes and recap were found to provide an adequate substitute record.

The statements were ruled admissible, with issues of accuracy and weight left for the jury.

The Crown sought to prevent the accused from re‑litigating two pre‑trial rulings made during an earlier jury trial that ended in a mistrial after the trial judge recused himself for a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from a personal tax dispute with the Canada Revenue Agency.

The Crown relied on s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code, which presumes that evidentiary and Charter rulings from a mistrial remain binding at a new trial unless the interests of justice require otherwise.

The court held that although the provision creates a presumption favouring preservation of prior rulings, the circumstances of the recusal and the trial judge’s own comments suggesting that earlier rulings might appear influenced by the conflict undermined confidence in those decisions.

Given that concern, the interests of justice required that the impugned motions be re‑litigated before the new trial judge.

The Crown’s application to bind the parties to the earlier rulings was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 406 grams of cocaine after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

At sentencing, the defence argued for mitigation based on alleged compulsion falling short of duress and repeated strip searches conducted by law enforcement.

The court rejected the claim of compulsion, finding the offender not credible and concluding she participated willingly for personal gain.

However, the court found that a second strip search conducted by police after arrest violated s. 8 of the Charter because it was carried out as a matter of routine policy without reasonable grounds.

Applying sentencing principles and the range established in appellate jurisprudence, the court reduced the otherwise fit sentence to reflect the police misconduct.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to admit statements allegedly made by the accused while detained at an airport under the Customs Act after officers suspected drug smuggling.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in oppressive circumstances.

The court held the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt due to the absence of reliable recordings, incomplete officer notes, and interrogation conditions including prolonged detention, lack of sleep, and uncomfortable conditions.

These factors undermined the reliability and context of the alleged admissions.

The impugned statements were ruled inadmissible.

Following a three‑day civil trial arising from a physical altercation at a banquet dinner, the plaintiff succeeded and was awarded damages.

The remaining issue concerned the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the plaintiff’s offer to settle, the defendant’s unsuccessful limitation defence, and the conduct of the trial under the simplified procedure, including excessive cross‑examination by defence counsel.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the plaintiff’s costs position reasonable and awarded the full amount claimed.

Following a family law trial concerning the imputation of income for child support purposes, the court found that the father had deliberately organized his financial affairs to conceal income and frustrate his child support obligations.

Although the father succeeded on a minor access issue, the mother prevailed on the primary issue relating to income and child support.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs of $17,320 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court held that the father's obstructive conduct, omissions in financial disclosure, and contradictory evidence justified the requested costs award.

Costs were awarded to the mother in full.

The moving party sought certification of a national class proceeding alleging that organic asphalt roofing shingles manufactured by the defendants were defective and prone to premature failure.

Claims were advanced in negligence and under various provincial consumer protection statutes, asserting that the shingles failed prematurely and exposed homeowners to risks such as water penetration, mould, and structural damage.

The defendants opposed certification on the grounds that the claim disclosed only pure economic loss, that no common defect existed across the products, and that individual remedies were preferable.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed viable causes of action, that expert evidence provided some basis in fact for a common defect, and that the proposed class and common issues met the statutory requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

A class proceeding was found to be the preferable procedure given the small individual claims and the efficiency of resolving common issues collectively.

The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action as statute-barred.

The defendant sought costs of $37,462 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, acting in person, failed to provide costs submissions despite extensions.

The court found the defendant's requested costs excessive given the motion's brevity and lack of complexity.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $24,196 inclusive of disbursements.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing a motion to transfer an application to the Divisional Court.

The underlying application sought a declaration that the Minimum Maintenance Standards regulation was ultra vires and invalid, arising from a motor vehicle accident tort action against a municipality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under section 8 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, the motion judge had the discretion to retain jurisdiction over the application rather than transferring it, and that this discretion was exercised reasonably to facilitate judicial economy.

The applicant mother sought to vary child support based on the respondent father's income as a self‑employed business owner.

The central issue was whether the father’s reported income accurately reflected the money available for support or whether income should be imputed under ss. 18 and 19 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court found the father’s financial evidence unreliable and concluded he had structured his business affairs to minimize apparent income and avoid support obligations.

The court imputed significantly higher income for several years and set an ongoing imputed income for future support calculations.

The court also addressed a minor access dispute and ordered the parents to share transportation responsibilities.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for damages arising from an alleged assault at a banquet after a dispute over a bottle of wine.

The defendant argued the claim was statute-barred and alternatively asserted self-defence.

The court held that although the Superior Court action was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period, the defendant effectively waived reliance on the limitation defence through counsel’s conduct when consenting to the withdrawal of a timely Small Claims Court action after a parallel Superior Court claim was issued.

On the merits, the court found the defendant was the primary aggressor and that the force used was neither reasonable nor proportionate to any threat.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for dental injuries and related losses.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy after they were found ineligible for geared-to-income rent due to alleged misrepresentation of assets.

At the Board hearing, the tenants attempted to raise the issue of harassment by the landlord's property manager, but the Board refused to consider it because it was not raised two weeks prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law because section 82 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the Board to permit a tenant to raise any issue that could be the subject of a tenant application.

The Board's order was set aside.

The parties separated after a 25-year marriage and equalized their assets, including the appellant's pension.

The appellant later retired and brought a motion to reduce his spousal support obligations.

The motions judge reduced the support but included the appellant's full pension income in the calculation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the motions judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to exclude the previously equalized portion of the pension, resulting in inequitable double recovery.

The appeal was allowed and spousal support was reduced based only on the unequalized portion of the pension.

The appellants appealed a trial decision in a construction lien action, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to find a verbal contract altering payment terms, and was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and the unambiguous written agreement.

The court also rejected the bias allegation, noting it was not raised at trial and had no basis.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant union brought an application for judicial review of an arbitration award that dismissed a policy grievance concerning early retirement and separation allowances during long-term layoffs.

The Arbitrator had concluded that the specific benefits in Article 10.14 of the collective agreement only applied to layoffs resulting from integrations and rationalizations, not general layoffs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision upholding an Assessment Officer's assessment of legal fees.

The Assessment Officer discounted the time of two senior lawyers because their dockets were not served in compliance with the Evidence Act and the lawyers did not attend the hearing, depriving the client of the opportunity to cross-examine them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Assessment Officer's decision or the reviewing judge's consideration.