Donald R. Orazietti

The appellant appealed the denial of a prohibition application, arguing that a Justice of the Peace must be legally trained to conduct a fair trial of provincial offences charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming its previous decisions that legal training is not required and noting that recent legislative changes have further strengthened the qualifications and training of Justices of the Peace.

The Registrar sought a 14-day suspension of the licensee's liquor licence after the Board found the licensee violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 by permitting two intoxicated patrons on the premises.

The licensee argued for a 3-day suspension.

Considering principles of specific and general deterrence, as well as the licensee's proactive measures to bar unruly patrons and lack of prior suspensions, the Board imposed a 5-day suspension.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for allegedly permitting drunkenness on the premises.

Following an inspection, AGCO inspectors observed four patrons exhibiting signs of intoxication.

The Board found that two of the patrons were intoxicated and that the licensee permitted them to be drunk on the premises, as they were observed drinking alcohol over a sufficient period for staff to notice their condition.

The allegation regarding a third patron was dismissed as staff had cut her off, and the fourth patron was found not to be intoxicated.

The Board concluded the licensee violated subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90 and requested submissions on penalty.

At a pre-hearing tele-conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered mutual disclosure.

The Licensee and the Registrar were ordered to disclose witness lists, witness statements, and other required materials ten days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

The accused was charged with possession of LSD for the purpose of trafficking after police found a bag of LSD with his fingerprints under a sofa in his shared residence.

A co-tenant testified that the accused was a drug dealer and owned the drugs.

The trial judge convicted the accused, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge was entitled to infer possession from the fingerprint evidence combined with the co-tenant's testimony, which was admissible as it was relevant to the issue of possession and not merely character evidence.