Ernest G. Guiste

The accused sought a trial adjournment to pursue a battered wife syndrome defence, requiring expert assessment and Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) funding.

The Crown opposed the adjournment, citing significant delays.

The court granted the adjournment reluctantly, imposing strict timelines for obtaining funding and developing the defence, and setting a peremptory trial date.

The court also raised concerns about the defence counsel's budget estimates and the overall pace of the proceedings.

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine after a secondary inspection at the airport, brought an application for third party records seeking CBSA training materials on racial profiling.

She alleged that her referral to secondary inspection was based on racial profiling because she is Black and was travelling from Jamaica.

The court applied the O'Connor test and found that the applicant failed to establish that the requested records were likely to be relevant.

The court held that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of racial profiling, as travelling from a drug source country was only one of several objective indicators used by the CBSA officer.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon and assault, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest, failure to interview/review disclosure, denial of the right to testify, failure to challenge a search, and inadequate cross-examination.

The court found the appellant's fresh evidence regarding his lack of awareness of counsel's role to be incredible and untruthful.

The appeal was dismissed, as the court found no factual basis for the ineffective assistance claim, no improper conflict of interest, that the decision not to testify was made by the appellant based on counsel's reasonable advice, and that the tactical decision not to challenge the search was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple offences relating to an armed home invasion robbery.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient evidence of identity, misapprehended evidence, and erred in law by reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge reasonably inferred identity from circumstantial evidence, including the doctrine of recent possession, and did not misapprehend material evidence or misapply the W.(D.) framework.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates with significant issues arising regarding defence counsel's conduct.

The defence counsel failed to meet minimum standards of competence, including incomplete motions, confusing disclosure requests, repetitious and irrelevant questioning, inattentiveness to evidence, incivility, inadequate review of disclosure materials, and an inappropriate allegation of prosecutorial misconduct.

The defence counsel closed his case prematurely without calling all intended witnesses and was unable to answer simple questions from the bench.

The judge declared a mistrial due to the defendant's lack of effective assistance from counsel and referred the matter to the Law Society.

Following dismissal of a malicious prosecution action for delay and the subsequent dismissal of a motion to set aside the registrar’s order, the court addressed costs.

The responding police defendants sought partial indemnity costs and reduced their request due to the moving party’s limited financial means.

The moving party argued that costs should not be awarded on public policy and access to justice grounds, relying on authorities where unsuccessful litigants were spared costs to avoid discouraging public interest litigation.

The court distinguished those authorities because the action had not been adjudicated on its merits but had been dismissed for delay and failure to comply with procedural rules.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount payable within six months.

The applicant sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions dismissing his complaints against his former employer, the TTC, and his union.

The TTC complaint was dismissed because the applicant had previously signed a settlement agreement releasing all claims, and the union complaint was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success due to a lack of particulars.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal's procedures were fair and its decisions were reasonable.

During the hearing of an application for judicial review, the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment and leave to file additional evidence towards the end of his submissions.

The opposing counsel objected, noting they had never seen the document.

The Divisional Court denied the requests, finding it totally inappropriate to raise the issue at the end of submissions when the application had been commenced over a year prior and listed for hearing for over nine months.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that found discrimination in only two of five alleged instances involving Toronto police officers, awarding $13,000 in compensation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by not conducting the hearing in French and erred in finding insufficient evidence of racial profiling.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable, noting the applicant never requested a French hearing and the Tribunal's factual findings on racial profiling and compensation were entitled to deference.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council regarding his inappropriate conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application primarily due to an unexplained 18-month delay in bringing the proceeding.

The court also considered the merits, finding no procedural unfairness in the complaint or investigation process, and rejecting the applicant's claim of ineffective counsel, noting there is no right to effective counsel in civil proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge failed to properly consider his s. 15 Charter violation and racial profiling allegations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant had not sought a specific Charter remedy at trial.

Furthermore, the trial judge's rejection of the racial profiling claim was based on credibility findings that were open to her on the evidence.

Following the dismissal of his appeal regarding the enforcement of a settlement, the appellant sought to be relieved from paying costs, claiming impecuniosity.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his financial situation.

The court noted the appellant had $30,000 in settlement funds held in trust, which could satisfy the costs award.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 payable to the respondent police services board out of the trust funds.

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and impaired driving.

The offender attacked a victim outside a bar with a machete, striking her in the head and causing a serious laceration and long-term psychological harm, before threatening others inside the bar.

The court considered the violent and unprovoked nature of the assault, the use of a weapon, and the significant impact on the victim as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s guilty plea, lack of prior violent record, advanced age, long-standing physical and mental health issues, and compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence reflecting denunciation and deterrence while accounting for pre-trial custody credit.

The personal respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found against him and the corporate respondent for sexual harassment and reprisal.

He argued he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent had received fair warning that failing to respond could result in the Tribunal proceeding without notice, and that he had failed to update his address with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also found no conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement reached by his former counsel with the respondent police board.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider her discretion to continue the proceeding under Rule 49.09(b) and erred in fact by ignoring his evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised her discretion to enforce the settlement, as the former counsel had ostensible authority to settle and the appellant's remedy for any allegedly negligent legal advice lay against his former counsel, not the respondents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The original application alleged that the union and personal respondents failed to adequately represent him in discipline proceedings due to discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5, as he was attempting to re-argue his case and did not demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established case law or involved a matter of public importance.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The original application alleged discrimination in employment and claimed that a grievance settlement leading to his resignation was signed under duress.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the criteria required under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of four decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had dismissed his complaint of disability discrimination against his former employer and union.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decisions, finding it reasonable to bar re-litigation of facts decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rejecting allegations of bias, and finding no denial of procedural fairness in refusing late document production.

The Court also found the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the applicant's termination was based on misconduct, not disability.

During a criminal trial for sexual offences, the Crown sought to admit a video‑recorded police statement given by the accused.

After a blended voir dire, the court found the statement voluntary but concluded that the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter had been infringed because police failed to adequately address obvious language difficulties during the arrest and interview process.

The court held that the officers should have inquired further into the accused’s English comprehension and offered interpreter assistance to ensure meaningful exercise of the right to counsel.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court determined that admission of the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The statement was therefore excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights applications against her former employer and union as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law regarding a unionized employee's right to independent counsel during grievance settlements.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant participated in the settlement, signed a release, and failed to demonstrate any conflict with established jurisprudence or other grounds justifying reconsideration.