Edmond Julien Joseph Paquette

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not involved in an 'accident' as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule relating to the vehicle insured by the applicant.

The respondent argued the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and made an error of law by narrowly framing the issue to a specific vehicle.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the issue was properly framed by prior consent orders and the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction or make an error of law.

The applicant insurer sought a preliminary determination of whether the respondent was involved in an 'accident' as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent suffered paraplegia when an inoperable vehicle he was helping to load onto a trailer fell and pinned him.

The Tribunal found that the incident did not meet the purpose test, as the vehicle was not roadworthy and could not move under its own power, meaning the injuries did not arise out of the ordinary use or operation of the vehicle.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not involved in an accident relating to the vehicle insured by the applicant.

This decision addresses an in camera hearing under s. 278.6 of the Criminal Code, following an accused's successful application for production of a complainant's counsellor records.

The court determined which portions of the records should be disclosed to the accused.

It ruled that Crown and defence counsel should be excluded from the in camera hearing, as their participation would be futile without prior access to the records and counter-productive to privacy.

The judge ordered disclosure of relevant excerpts pertaining to the counsellor's role in the complainant's police statements and the identity of the perpetrator, while balancing the complainant's privacy interests.

The accused, C.F., applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for the production of records from a school counsellor concerning the complainant, K.W., in a sexual offence case.

The accused sought production due to a material inconsistency between the complainant's police statements and her preliminary inquiry testimony regarding an act of cunnilingus.

The court found the records likely relevant and their production necessary in the interests of justice, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights.

The court ordered the records produced for judicial review.

The Crown sought leave to adduce evidence of discreditable conduct, both from one count to another and extrinsic to the indictment, in a sexual assault case.

The central issue was whether the complainant's consent was vitiated by the accused's breach of his position of authority.

The court applied the similar fact evidence test, requiring a sufficient nexus and probative value outweighing prejudice.

The application was dismissed, as the court found insufficient commonality and nexus between the proposed evidence (from another employee and financial irregularities) and the sexual assault charge, particularly regarding the complainant's stated reason for consent and lack of direct threats.

The appellant appealed the Director's Notice of Proposed Order refusing to issue him a standardbred licence.

The appellant had previously been suspended for 14 months.

During a search of his stable, investigators found thyroxine, a controlled drug, which the appellant had acquired without a veterinary examination or blood test, violating the Rules of Racing.

The Ontario Racing Commission panel denied the appeal, finding that the appellant's conduct placed the integrity of the horse racing industry in question and that he failed to demonstrate he would act in accordance with the law or in the public interest.

His licence remains suspended, with eligibility to re-apply in two years.

The appellants, a driver and a trainer, appealed a 3-day driving suspension imposed for causing interference during a horse race.

The Ontario Racing Commission reviewed the film evidence and heard testimony from the judges and the driver who suffered the interference.

The Commission found that the appellant crossed over in front of the other driver, causing the horse to break stride, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant horse trainer appealed a ruling that found him in violation of the Rules of Standardbred Racing after his horse tested positive for elevated TCO2 levels.

The appellant argued that the test was invalid because the blood sample was taken 28 minutes prior to the race, outside the 20-minute window prescribed by the rules.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, accepting expert evidence that taking the sample further from race time actually benefited the horseman.

The panel concluded that the elevated TCO2 level could only result from human interference and upheld the violation.

The applicant sought production of the insurer's post-mediation adjusting file in a dispute over statutory accident benefits.

The insurer claimed litigation and solicitor-client privilege over 18 portions of the file.

The arbitrator reviewed the unedited file and ordered production of the portions relating to ongoing payment of undisputed benefits, while upholding privilege over entries concerning reserves, litigation strategy, and communications with legal counsel.

The appellant, a standardbred owner/driver/trainer, appealed a ruling that fined him $5,000 and suspended him for one year following a positive test result for Furosemide on a horse.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty, with the suspension to run from December 9, 2002, to December 8, 2003.