Elizabeth Warren

Thomas Adderley appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his 18-month custodial sentence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence, failing to properly apply the law, and overlooking an absence of forensic evidence.

Regarding the sentence, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred in finding unprotected sexual intercourse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction and the appeal from sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or the treatment of the aggravating factor.

The applicant, Vernon Hall, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence or a stay of proceedings, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11 of the Charter during a border interception and subsequent arrest for human smuggling.

The court found that the initial stop and towing of the vessel were lawful under the Customs Act and Canada Shipping Act, akin to a secondary border inspection, and therefore, the applicant's section 10(b) rights were not triggered at that stage.

The court also found no arbitrary detention, no unlawful search incident to arrest, and that the lost video evidence did not impact the applicant's right to make full answer and defence or the integrity of the justice system.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought two Charter applications seeking to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at an apartment unit.

He argued the warrant lacked facial and subfacial validity, and that his arrest amounted to arbitrary detention.

The court dismissed both applications, finding the warrant was properly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds of drug trafficking, the arrest was lawful, and there were no material omissions that would invalidate the warrant.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The hearing officer, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, and the Divisional Court all applied a balance of probabilities standard of proof.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that it was bound by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Penner, which established that the standard of proof in PSA hearings is a higher standard of 'clear and convincing evidence', not a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Commission.

The respondent public complainant sought partial indemnity costs of $9,316.87 from the applicant police officer following a proceeding.

The applicant did not dispute the quantum but argued no costs should be ordered because the matter was a test case concerning the standard of proof in police disciplinary cases.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that while the co-respondent police service did not seek costs, the proceeding was not a test case for the public complainant, who was maintaining a civil claim against the applicant.

The court awarded the requested costs to the respondent public complainant.

The applicant police officer sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) upholding his conviction for unnecessary exercise of authority.

The applicant argued that the hearing officer erred by applying the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) rather than a higher standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' under s. 84(1) of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in F.H. v. McDougall established that there is only one civil standard of proof, and that police discipline hearings remain civil proceedings governed by the balance of probabilities.