F. Bruce Fitzpatrick

The applicant, Drew Mitchell, sought to vacate a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The application for bail review was based on alleged errors of law by the Justice of the Peace and the presentation of new evidence demonstrating a material change in circumstances.

The court found no error of law in the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the Crown's opposition to bail or in the finding of fact regarding compliance with previous conditions.

The new release plan, while offering some improvements, still had a significant gap in supervision and was not considered a material change in circumstances.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The defendant, Stacey Newman, brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP legislation) to dismiss a defamation and malicious prosecution action brought by the plaintiffs, Azim Rizvee and Rabiya Azim.

The court found that Newman's public statements regarding Rizvee's political candidacy and campaign conduct related to a matter of public interest, satisfying the initial burden for the anti-SLAPP motion on the defamation claim.

However, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Newman had no valid defence (specifically, fair comment and limitations period) and provided insufficient evidence of serious harm to their reputation.

Consequently, the defamation claim was dismissed.

Conversely, the malicious prosecution claim, arising from Newman's private peace bond application against Rizvee, was deemed not to relate to a matter of public interest, and thus the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss it was denied.

The applicant, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Stinchcombe application seeking disclosure of police documents related to two search warrants.

The defence alleged fraud in obtaining the second warrant, specifically fabricating a confidential informant (CI #6).

The court dismissed the application for disclosure of the "SMEAC" report (finding it irrelevant to guilt/innocence and protected by public interest privilege), confidential informant handling notes for CI #1 (due to informer privilege and lack of reliance by the affiant), and handling notes for CI #6 (finding no sufficient evidentiary foundation to establish relevance for a Garofoli application, despite alleged irregularities in the search).

Four plaintiffs brought a consolidated medical malpractice action against St. Joseph's General Hospital regarding defective Vitek TMJ implants surgically placed by oral surgeons at the hospital in the mid-1980s.

The trial was bifurcated to determine liability.

The court found that the claims of three plaintiffs were statute-barred under the strict two-year limitation period in the Public Hospitals Act, as the discoverability principle did not apply.

For the remaining plaintiff, the court held the hospital was not negligent in credentialing the surgeons, obtaining consent, or failing to recall patients, as those duties rested with the physicians.

However, the hospital breached its duty of care as a purchaser by failing to inquire with Health Canada whether the implants had a required Notice of Compliance.

The court apportioned fault at 5% to the hospital, 50% to the non-party manufacturer (Vitek), 25% to the non-party distributor (Instrumentarium), and 20% to the settling oral surgeons.

The 74-year-old accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm against his wife.

At the time of the offence, he was on full parole for the second-degree murder of his previous wife.

The Crown sought 5-7 years, while the defence sought time served.

The court found that the accused was not entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody because his incarceration was related to his parole revocation for the prior murder conviction, not the current offence.

The court sentenced the accused to two years plus one day in a penitentiary, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the victim.

The defendants, Man-Shield (NWO) Construction Inc. and Manshield (NWO) Construction, Inc., brought an application to stay multiple construction lien actions in favour of arbitration.

The subcontractors and owners opposed the stay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Man-Shield had unduly delayed in seeking the stay, as measured from the date the statements of claim were issued.

The court also found Man-Shield estopped by its conduct and that granting a stay would create more uncertainty and delay, rather than facilitate resolution.

The applicant sought to change a prior order regarding child support and section 7 expenses, alleging a material change in the respondent's income.

The respondent did not appear.

The court imputed an income of $30,530 to the respondent based on historical earnings, ordered retroactive and ongoing child support of $445 per month from September 1, 2016, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The claims for section 7 expenses were adjourned for further consideration, and the court criticized the applicant for not providing better notice of the uncontested trial to the respondent.

The accused was found guilty of possession and making child pornography available.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day concurrent for both counts, plus three years probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought the mandatory minimum of one year concurrent.

The court accepted the Crown's position, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, noting the offender's lack of genuine remorse and active distribution of child pornography.

The accused, an Indigenous man with a tragic background, pleaded guilty to manslaughter following a vicious and prolonged assault on an older victim.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence proposed 6 years.

Applying Gladue principles and considering the accused's designation as a dangerous offender, the court imposed a sentence of 8 years' incarceration, less 4 years of pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year Long Term Supervision Order.

Jan Goro, charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to admit details of incidents involving a third-party suspect, Jack Laforge, where charges were initiated but no convictions resulted.

The Crown brought a similar cross-application to admit details of incidents involving Mr. Goro where police investigated but no charges were laid.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the unproven allegations had minimal probative value and significant prejudicial effect, especially given that both parties' criminal convictions would already be admitted.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit a statement made by the accused, Jan Goro, to police in 2003, in a second-degree murder case.

The statement was given after Goro was arrested on a foot impression warrant.

The court found that the police failed to inform Goro that he was free to leave after the warrant was executed, thereby undermining his free will and right to choose whether to speak to police.

Consequently, the statement was deemed involuntary and inadmissible at trial for any purpose, including cross-examination.

The Crown sought indemnification for reasonable defence costs from the respondent pursuant to a prior declaration.

The respondent argued that because the Crown used salaried in-house counsel, its costs were purely notional and it suffered no actual loss.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the Crown incurs real costs for salaried lawyers, analogous to the statutory recognition in section 131(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the nine factors from Cohen v. Kealey and Blaney, the court fixed the reasonable defence costs at $30,000 plus disbursements, and awarded $4,000 for the costs of the application.

Katelyn Skead, 26, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the fatal stabbing of an 80-year-old elder, James Redsky, during a home invasion and attempted car theft while intoxicated.

The court considered a joint submission for a 13-year sentence, with credit for time served.

The sentencing judge applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the offender's horrific childhood, substance abuse issues, and the legacy of colonialism affecting her First Nation community, while also weighing the aggravating factors of the violent nature of the crime and its impact on the victim's family and community.

The joint submission was accepted, resulting in a 13-year sentence less 3 years credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition with an exception for constitutional/treaty hunting and fishing rights.

The accused, Jason Davidson, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, A.K., who has mental and physical challenges, alleged that Davidson committed anal intercourse without her consent.

The court considered the complainant's testimony, which included prior consensual sexual interactions with the accused, and her admission that she performed the act "to please him." Despite finding that the sexual touching occurred, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent, particularly due to inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, her withholding of information from police, and her actions immediately following the alleged assault.

Davidson was acquitted.

The applicant, charged in 2013 with a 1976 murder, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence.

The lost evidence included the notes of thirteen police officers, an audiotaped confession by a third-party suspect, a videotaped recantation by that suspect, and various occurrence reports.

The court found that the deliberate destruction of police notes and the unexplained loss of the recordings constituted unacceptable negligence, breaching the applicant's section 7 Charter rights.

Concluding that the cumulative prejudice irreparably harmed the applicant's ability to make full answer and defence, the court granted a stay of proceedings.

During a bifurcated trial on liability regarding TMJ implant surgeries, three mid-trial motions were brought concerning the calling of witnesses.

The defendant's motion to call Dr. Wyant was granted on consent.

The plaintiffs moved to reopen their case to call a former hospital records director regarding a spoliation claim, and to call the former chief of staff as an adverse witness.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to reopen their case to call the records director, finding no prejudice to the defendant.

The court also put the defendant to its election under Rule 53.07(1) regarding the former chief of staff, allowing the plaintiffs to call him if the defendant chose not to.

In a complex medical malpractice trial, the defendant hospital brought a mid-trial motion seeking leave under Rule 31.11(6) to introduce discovery transcripts of a deceased doctor from other actions.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing they did not have the transcripts when prior Pierringer orders were made and would be irreparably prejudiced because their experts had not reviewed them.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs did not have the transcripts prior to trial and that admitting them now would cause irreparable prejudice that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The defendant Rainy River First Nation brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation claim, which arose from a band council resolution (BCR) describing them as "undesirables" and prohibiting their entry onto First Nation territory.

The court found that the BCR was published and contained defamatory words.

The defendant's arguments of qualified privilege, issue estoppel, and abuse of process were dismissed.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs, with damages assessed at $5,000 for each plaintiff due to limited publication and minimal impact on reputation.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, sought a declaration that the respondent, Turn-Key Construction Inc., had a contractual duty to defend Ontario in an action commenced by a third party, G. Prezio Electric Limited.

The underlying action arose from Turn-Key's subcontractor severing a major electrical power line during contract performance, leading Ontario to engage Prezio for emergency repairs.

The court found that the indemnity clause in the commercial contract between Ontario and Turn-Key created a duty to defend, as the third-party claim was "based upon, occasioned by or attributable to" the subcontractor's actions.

The application was granted, and Turn-Key was ordered to pay Ontario's defence costs.

The accused was tried on charges of possession of child pornography and making child pornography available, based entirely on circumstantial digital evidence seized from a laptop and an iPhone found in a residence he occupied.

The court accepted expert forensic evidence linking the devices to each other and to the accused through user-account information, backup files, and online handles, and held that the electronic extraction tools did not undermine reliability.

The court also admitted chat printouts and extracted files for their truth under the Canada Evidence Act and the principled hearsay exception.

Applying the law of possession in digital contexts and the circumstantial-evidence standard, the court found that guilt was the only rational inference and entered convictions on both counts.