Faye E. McWatt

The City of Ottawa brought an ex-parte motion for an interim injunction against "Persons Unknown" (Freedom Convoy 2022) to restrain ongoing violations of municipal by-laws during a demonstration.

The court granted the injunction, finding overwhelming evidence of by-law breaches and significant disruption to city functions and public safety.

The decision applied the modified test for statutory injunctions under the Municipal Act, emphasizing the public interest in law enforcement over the need to prove irreparable harm or balance of convenience.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of failing to provide necessaries of life and forcible confinement of their four-year-old child.

The trial judge erred by requiring proof of actual risk of harm for the necessaries charge under s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, and by not considering the egregious conditions of confinement for the forcible confinement charge.

The appeal court found that a sanitary environment is a necessary of life and the child was in necessitous circumstances, overturning the acquittal on necessaries.

For forcible confinement, the court held that the parents' authority to confine ceases when conduct is abusive or harmful, remitting this charge for a new trial.

The applicant sought a bail review under section 520(1) of the Criminal Code, requesting vacation of a prior detention order.

The application was based on two alleged material changes in circumstances: a new release plan with different sureties (uncle and aunt) and the prevalence of COVID-19 in society and jails.

The court dismissed the application, finding that neither the new release plan nor the COVID-19 pandemic, without specific medical evidence for the applicant, constituted a material change sufficient to warrant release on secondary or tertiary grounds.

The court emphasized the escalating gravity of the alleged firearm and drug offences and the applicant's history of breaching bail conditions.

The defendant, Philip Grandine, was sentenced for manslaughter after administering lorazepam to his pregnant wife, Karissa Grandine, who subsequently drowned in a bathtub.

The court found the defendant's actions were planned and premeditated, motivated by a desire for freedom from his marriage to pursue an affair and pornography, and constituted a deceptive and effective assault.

Despite the absence of extreme physical violence, the court emphasized the domestic violence, vulnerability of the victim (who was also pregnant), and breach of trust as aggravating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 years in penitentiary, less 37 months for pre-trial custody and house arrest, resulting in a further 11 years and 11 months to be served.

The defendant, Dale Lapps, brought an application to resile from an admission made by his counsel regarding the admissibility of his trucking logs in his third trial for importing and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the admission was binding under section 655 of the Criminal Code and professional conduct rules.

The court found that an application was necessary to withdraw an admission and that such withdrawal is only permitted in narrow circumstances, such as mistake or misunderstanding, which were not demonstrated by the applicant.

The application was dismissed, and the admission stood.

Domenico Scopelliti was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting his father-in-law, Rocco Zito.

The jury found provocation, reducing the charge from first-degree murder.

The Crown sought an 11-year sentence, while the defence requested 7 years, with the accepted range being 8 to 12 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the use of a firearm and the defendant's involvement in organized crime activities, despite mitigating factors like no prior criminal record and expressed remorse.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, reduced by pre-trial custody.

The applicant, O.M., sought to sever counts on a single indictment relating to two different complainants, Ms. D.K. and Ms. J.M., alleging various violent and sexual offences.

The court granted the severance motion, finding no factual or legal nexus between the sets of allegations, which were separated by five years.

The judge noted the risk of cross-pollination of credibility assessments and propensity reasoning if the charges were tried together, concluding that severance was required in the interests of justice despite limiting jury instructions.

This is a costs ruling following motions where the respondent's motion to change an order was unsuccessful, and the applicant's motion to impute income and change child and spousal support was successful.

The City of Toronto also participated due to an assignment of arrears.

The court awarded the City of Toronto $5,000 in costs and the applicant $20,000 plus HST and disbursements for her solicitor's fees, and $2,000 plus HST and disbursements for her self-represented preparation time, finding the respondent's conduct unreasonable, particularly regarding financial disclosure and disregard for court orders.

The defendant, Justin Wallace, brought two motions during his criminal trial.

The first sought a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter due to lost preliminary inquiry evidence (cross-examination transcript of a complainant).

The second sought to exclude a BB gun under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging arbitrary detention, unlawful search, and delayed right to counsel.

The court dismissed both motions, finding no actual prejudice to the right to make full answer and defence regarding the lost evidence, and no Charter breaches regarding the detention and search, accepting the officers' credibility over the defendant's.

This is a costs ruling following a trial where the respondent was entirely successful.

The applicant, who was self-represented, failed to provide costs submissions.

The court found the applicant's conduct throughout the proceedings to be unreasonable, including denying access to the parties' child without cause, making unreasonable demands in her draft order, and ignoring court orders.

The respondent, conversely, acted reasonably and made two offers to settle that were more favorable than the final trial order.

Despite the applicant's self-representation, her unreasonable behaviour necessitated the trial and warranted a costs award.

The respondent was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The United States sought the extradition of Jianghong Wang for prosecution of sexual assault.

The respondent conceded identification and the sufficiency of evidence for the Canadian equivalent offence but argued the identification evidence was unreliable and insufficient for committal.

The court, applying the limited screening function of an extradition judge, found that the identification evidence, including multiple complainants identifying the respondent from news reports and consistent assault patterns, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for committal.

The application for extradition was granted.

The defendant, Michael Campbell, challenged the constitutionality of section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code, specifically the 'misconduct exception' which limits pre-sentence custody credit to a 1:1 ratio when an offender is denied bail under section 524(4) or (8).

The court found this provision to be overbroad and in violation of section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, declaring it of no force and effect.

Consequently, the defendant was granted enhanced pre-trial custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, along with additional credit for harsh institutional conditions and successful house arrest.

The court then proceeded to sentence the defendant for exercising control over a prostitute and possessing a prohibited firearm, imposing a total sentence of 45 months imprisonment, reduced by the enhanced pre-trial credit, followed by two years of probation and ancillary orders.

The appellant, B.P. (YOA), appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's errors regarding the admissibility and reliability of the complainant's hearsay statement, the weight given to the complainant's mother's evidence despite misidentification, the failure to properly analyze the appellant's evidence against the burden of proof, and impermissible speculation about the complainant's knowledge of sexual activity.

The Superior Court of Justice found multiple errors in the trial judge's approach to hearsay reliability, assessment of witness credibility, and application of the burden of proof.

The appeal was granted, convictions quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was based on three grounds: the trial judge's reliance on inadmissible evidence, an error in finding an unequivocal refusal, and an error in finding the incident was not a "single transaction." The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the entire video evidence was admissible as it was tendered without limitation, the trial judge's finding of an unequivocal refusal was supported by evidence and entitled to deference, and the appellant's late inquiry about providing a sample did not constitute an unequivocal offer or part of a "single transaction" to mitigate the initial refusal.

The applicants, three police officers charged with sexual assault, sought to vary a sealing order to prohibit publication of information from an Information to Obtain (ITO) DNA warrants, arguing it was necessary to preserve trial fairness and prevent witness tainting and stigmatization.

The Crown supported the ban for consistency with a prior publication ban on conflict motion materials.

The media respondents opposed the ban.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban, which requires demonstrating a serious risk to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by alternative measures, and that the salutary effects outweigh the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and public right to know.

The court emphasized the presumptive openness of warrant materials and the public interest in the investigation of police officers.

Following a twelve‑day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, the successful party sought costs exceeding $140,000 after defeating the other party’s motion to change a prior consent order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the successful party achieved total success and acted reasonably throughout the proceedings.

Although self‑represented at trial, the successful party had used limited legal assistance and was herself a lawyer, making recovery of reasonable fees appropriate.

The court reduced certain claimed amounts but rejected arguments that self‑representation barred recovery of legal fees.

Substantial costs were awarded against the unsuccessful party.

The father brought a motion to terminate child support for an adult child retroactive to January 1, 2010.

The evidence showed the child had resided primarily with the father since 2010, had completed college, and was working full-time as an automotive apprentice, rendering him financially independent.

The court found the child was no longer entitled to support but declined to terminate support retroactively due to the father's lengthy delay in bringing the motion and the likelihood the funds had already been spent.

The mother's cross-motion seeking a historical review of child support and extensive financial disclosure was dismissed due to her own delay in pursuing the claim.

Child support was terminated prospectively and the mother was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs.

Following a motion to change seeking termination or reduction of long‑term spousal support, the court addressed costs after the responding party successfully defended the support order.

Although the court found a material change in circumstances due to the recipient’s failure to pursue employment, it declined to reduce support and noted the payor had been paying less than the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines suggested.

The court held the responding party was the successful party and had beaten a prior settlement offer.

The court also considered the moving party’s incomplete financial disclosure and unreasonable settlement offers.

Full recovery costs were awarded to the responding party.

The accused brought a motion under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for alleged breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from charge to the anticipated trial was approximately 31 months, with about 19 months attributed to institutional or mixed institutional delay.

Applying the Morin framework, the court considered the reasons for delay and whether actual or inferred prejudice had been established.

The accused alleged stress, bail restrictions, housing issues, and inability to travel, but the court found these harms were not caused by the delay or were self-inflicted due to failure to seek bail variations.

Given the seriousness of the charges and absence of demonstrated prejudice, the court concluded the delay did not justify a stay.

Following convictions for criminal harassment and breaches of probation, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal history including numerous sexual offences, violent offences, and repeated breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric assessments diagnosing schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, paraphilias, and substance abuse disorders.

Expert evidence established a high risk of future sexual violence and persistent failure to restrain behaviour.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

The offender failed to establish that community management would adequately protect the public, and the court imposed a penitentiary sentence followed by long‑term supervision.