Dr. Hy Bloom

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm, the court conducted the required post-verdict fact-finding exercise and accepted the complainant's evidence in its entirety, including repeated forced anal, oral, and vaginal penetration, choking, degrading conduct, and profound long-term psychological harm.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount given the manipulative and degrading nature of the offence, while also recognizing the offender's lack of prior record, family support, work history, and rehabilitation prospects.

A defence forensic psychiatric opinion was not accepted as a reliable basis to conclude the offender posed a low future risk or lacked a paraphilic disorder.

Collateral consequences, including loss of career, public notoriety, and exposure to a civil claim, were considered but given limited weight.

A penitentiary sentence of five years and mandatory ancillary orders were imposed.

The defendant in a long-term disability action brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a psychiatric Independent Medical Evaluation (IME).

The plaintiff opposed, arguing she had already attended a pre-litigation psychiatric assessment with a different doctor.

The court held that the pre-litigation assessment did not constitute a first examination under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act, giving the defendant a prima facie right to the requested IME.

Alternatively, the court found sufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant a further examination.

The motion was granted.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death after striking and killing an e-bike rider while speeding.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, her guilty plea, her significant remorse, and her mental health struggles, balanced against the severe consequences of her actions and her prior speeding infractions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, and a 10-year driving prohibition.

Following a 10-day trial on parenting issues where the respondent father was entirely successful, he sought partial indemnity costs of $350,000 plus half the costs of a section 30 assessment.

The court found that the applicant mother's conduct throughout the litigation was deplorable and unreasonable, driven by false allegations of abuse and alienating behaviours, though it fell just short of bad faith.

The court awarded the respondent his requested costs of $389,346.18, noting the amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity of the issues and the applicant's conduct.

The applicant mother sought joint custody, parallel decision-making, and equal parenting time of the parties' 10-year-old child.

The respondent father sought sole custody and decision-making responsibility, with the child spending 5 out of 14 days with the mother, along with therapeutic interventions.

The court found that the mother engaged in egregious post-separation conduct, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, which caused emotional harm to the child and raised significant concerns of parental alienation.

Relying on expert assessments, the court concluded that the mother was unable to co-parent and that her hostility towards the father remained unresolved.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, limited the mother's parenting time to 5 out of 14 days, and ordered therapeutic supervision for the mother.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of failing to comply with probation and a non-communication order by repeatedly contacting his former partner while in custody and on parole.

The court emphasized denunciation and specific deterrence given the offender's history of domestic violence and blatant disregard for court orders.

The offender was sentenced to one day in jail, after receiving 22 months of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions, followed by three years of probation with strict non-contact conditions.

The offender, a lawyer and real estate developer, was convicted of two counts of theft over $5000 for misappropriating approximately $1.8 million in mortgage proceeds from two jointly-owned corporate projects.

The court found the offender abused her position of trust as a corporate director and engaged in a sophisticated pattern of collateral dishonesty to cover up the thefts.

Applying the principles of general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale commercial frauds, the court sentenced the offender to three years' imprisonment and imposed a fine of $220,286 in lieu of forfeiture.

The defendant builder brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from mould discovered in a home purchased in 1997.

The plaintiff claimed over $6 million for physical, emotional, and financial injuries.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's psychiatric injuries were not reasonably foreseeable to a person of ordinary fortitude, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove the mould caused his physical injuries or financial losses.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery, being masked with intent, and possession of a weapon after participating in a planned jewellery store robbery on Halloween night.

The court weighed the gravity of the offence, which involved a firearm and disguises, against the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and guilty plea.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 3 years for the robbery, less 7 months credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years and 5 months, along with concurrent sentences for the remaining charges.

Sentencing decision for offences of possessing child pornography, accessing child pornography, and making child pornography available arising from online chats and a search revealing thousands of child pornography images and videos.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, while also weighing the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, cooperation, and psychiatric evidence indicating a low risk of contact offending but risk of future internet-based recidivism.

Comparable authorities did not support the defence request for a 12-month custodial sentence.

A sentence of 18 months' jail and 3 years' probation was imposed, together with DNA, SOIRA, prohibition, non-communication, weapons, and forfeiture orders, while a broader prohibition on attending parks and pools was refused.

The appellant shot and killed his ex-girlfriend before shooting himself in the head, resulting in a severe brain injury and retrograde amnesia.

At trial, he argued that his inability to remember the events surrounding the homicide rendered him unfit to stand trial and violated his right to make full answer and defence.

The trial judge dismissed these applications, and he was convicted of second degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that testimonial competence is not a condition precedent to fitness to stand trial, and that amnesia alone does not render an accused unfit or justify a stay of proceedings.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action against the respondent family physician.

The appellants alleged the respondent over-prescribed narcotics, causing the appellant husband's addiction.

The motions judge dismissed the action as statute-barred under the one-year limitation period in the Regulated Health Professions Act, finding the appellants knew the material facts when they complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons over two years before commencing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the discoverability rule did not postpone the limitation period as the appellants were aware of the material facts and did not require an independent medical opinion to commence the action.

The appellant psychiatrist appealed a finding of incompetence and the subsequent penalty imposed by the discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The committee found the appellant incompetent due to severe deficiencies in record keeping and poor judgment in treating complex psychiatric patients.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of incompetence, noting the committee's specialized expertise and the cumulative effect of the appellant's conduct.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding penalty, finding the 30-month suspension and strict practice restrictions excessive.

The Court substituted a less restrictive penalty involving video monitoring, a full-time secretary, and practice supervision.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and other offences following a shooting at his high school.

At trial, he was found fit to stand trial and did not raise a defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

On appeal, fresh psychiatric evidence established that the appellant suffered from severe paranoid schizophrenia and was NCRMD at the time of the offences.

However, the appellant was too mentally ill to participate in his appeal or instruct counsel.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the appellant's incompetence, as the Criminal Code does not require an appellant to be fit to prosecute an appeal, provided procedural fairness is ensured.

The Court allowed the appeal and substituted a verdict of NCRMD, finding that a new trial was unnecessary given the conclusive fresh evidence.

The appellant teacher appealed a decision of the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Committee had found the appellant incapacitated due to a mental condition that led to serious boundary violations with a student.

The Committee rejected a joint submission on penalty and imposed more stringent conditions, including a requirement for therapy and a psychiatric assessment before returning to teaching.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee properly followed procedural fairness when rejecting the joint submission and reasonably exercised its statutory duty to protect the public interest.