Emily Anne Bala

The appellant, G.H., appealed convictions for sexual assault and related sexual touching charges, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The trial judge had found the complainant credible but with reliability concerns, which were addressed by confirmatory evidence from the complainant's brother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including the use of confirmatory evidence and the holistic approach to ongoing sexual abuse allegations.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the five-year sentence within range despite a factual error by the trial judge.

However, a lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order was varied to 20 years in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider the impact of possible inadvertent tainting on the complainant’s evidence, by rejecting the appellant’s testimony based on an unreasonable inference, and in refusing to consider the appellant’s mental disability in assessing his testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was alive to the potential for inadvertent tainting, that any errors in inference regarding the appellant's testimony were harmless, and that the trial judge appropriately dealt with the intellectual disability evidence for testimonial accommodation but not for credibility assessment as it was not admitted for that purpose.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from the Divisional Court, which had found the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal's decision unreasonable.

The case concerned the interpretation of the Pay Equity Act, specifically whether the statutory proxy method, used to establish pay equity in female-dominated workplaces, must also be used to maintain it.

The Tribunal had ruled that the proxy method was not required for maintenance, leading to an internal comparison method.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the Tribunal's interpretation was unreasonable, as it ignored the Act's purpose, scheme, and wording, which necessitate an ongoing comparison to male (or deemed male) comparators to redress systemic gender discrimination.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to specify procedures for maintaining pay equity using the proxy method.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add new parties and assert additional causes of action, including nuisance, negligence, and various Charter and international covenant claims.

The defendants opposed the amendments and brought motions to strike.

The court denied leave to add new Ministries/Ministers, dismissed claims based on international covenants as not actionable in domestic law, and rejected most Charter claims (specifically s. 7) on the basis of issue estoppel, as these issues had been previously determined by the Environmental Review Tribunal and upheld by the Divisional Court.

However, the court permitted amendments for nuisance and negligence claims against the K2 defendants, acknowledging that the alleged harms were now realized post-construction.

The action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Director was dismissed.