Don Sullivan

The applicant, a construction company, sought leave to appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing its appeal from sentences imposed for environmental offences.

The company was convicted of two counts of discharging material into a watercourse contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act and two counts of failing to notify the Ministry of the Environment of those discharges.

The total sentence imposed was $220,000 in fines.

The applicant argued the fines were excessive and that aggravating and mitigating circumstances should have been weighed differently.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of principle and noting that the sentencing judge's weighing of relevant factors was owed deference.

The defendant was charged with five counts related to theft, breaking and entering, and possession of stolen property for trafficking.

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records, financial difficulties of the defendant, and inconsistencies in his statements to police.

The defendant denied the charges, claiming the coins sold were his own and that he was unaware of the theft at the time of initial sales.

The court found the defendant's evidence not credible and concluded that the only rational conclusion was his guilt based on the totality of circumstantial evidence.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges under the Environmental Protection Act for operating a waste disposal site without a Certificate of Approval and disposing of waste contrary to their Waste Management System Approval.

The core issue was whether the respondent's approval for "collection, handling and transportation" implicitly included storage.

The court found that storage was not authorized and that the trial judge erred in her interpretation of the approval and the application of due diligence.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a stay of proceedings was ordered, as further proceedings were deemed not in the interests of justice.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The charge was laid on February 10, 2008, and the matter was scheduled for its second trial on April 29, 2013, resulting in a delay of over five years.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that although the total delay was substantial, the accused had effectively waived his section 11(b) rights by insisting on waiting for a Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Dineley before proceeding to trial.

The court found that the accused was the author of his own misfortune and dismissed the application.