Fredrick Ramsay Schumann

The appellant, Christopher Morris, appealed his convictions for firearm offences and his sentence.

The conviction appeal concerned whether an inoperable handgun, requiring a new firing pin, met the definition of "firearm" under the Criminal Code.

The sentence appeal sought a reduction based on the principles of anti-Black racism established in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the handgun was adaptable as a firearm.

The court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the global sentence by one year, acknowledging the impact of anti-Black racism on the appellant's moral culpability and rehabilitation prospects, based on fresh evidence from an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of uttering threats, claiming he was pressured due to being in custody and unable to afford trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plea was informed and voluntary.

The court noted that while pressures exist when pleading guilty in custody, the plea comprehension inquiry conducted by the trial judge, coupled with the appellant's representation by counsel and lack of voiced concerns at the time, indicated a clear and informed waiver of his right to trial.

The appeal against sentence was also dismissed as the sentence had already been served.

The Auditor General of Ontario appealed a lower court decision regarding the interpretation of section 10 of the Auditor General Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

A.35.

The core issue was whether the Act confers authority on the Auditor General to access and compel disclosure of privileged information (solicitor-client, litigation, and settlement privilege) from a grant recipient, Laurentian University of Sudbury, during a value-for-money audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that statutory language must demonstrate a clear, explicit, and unambiguous intent to abrogate privilege, and the Auditor General Act's provisions did not meet this high standard.

The applicant, Original Traders Energy Ltd. (OTE Group), brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against former executives, Glenn Page and Mandy Cox, and their corporate entity, 2658658 Ontario Inc., to freeze a yacht allegedly purchased with OTE funds through fraudulent means.

The court granted the injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud, a serious risk of asset dissipation given the yacht's movement after notice, and that the balance of convenience favored the applicant.

The requirement for an undertaking as to damages was dispensed with due to the applicant's insolvency and the strength of their case.

The order included directing the respondents to facilitate the yacht's return to Florida.

This endorsement addresses four motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in a constitutional challenge brought by Animal Justice et al. against the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020.

The applicants in the main case allege violations of Charter rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, liberty, security of the person, arbitrary detention, and reverse onus.

The court applied the test for intervention, considering the nature of the case, the issues, and the likelihood of a useful contribution without causing injustice or expanding the record.

The motion by Justice for Migrant Workers was dismissed for lack of a substantial interest and for attempting to expand the issues.

The motion by Centre for Free Expression was allowed in part, limited to the existing issues and excluding a proposed s. 2(a) Charter argument due to lack of a developed record and expertise.

The motions by Animal Alliance of Canada and Regan Russell Foundation were fully allowed, as they met the criteria and did not seek to expand the issues.

All successful interventions were granted subject to specific conditions on written and oral submissions.

The appellant appealed a 22-month jail sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography, seeking a conditional sentence and arguing errors in considering an unconstitutional mandatory minimum and failing to weigh health problems.

The Crown conceded the unconstitutionality of the minimum but argued the sentence was fit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the 22-month sentence, finding it appropriate given the nature and volume of the material, and that health issues were considered.

However, on consent, the court allowed the appeal to substitute a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) registration for the lifetime order, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple firearm-related charges, arguing that his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were breached due to an unlawful arrest and subsequent search, and that the trial judge erred in admitting the seized evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and search incident to arrest, based on the totality of the circumstances including confidential informant information, observed drug transactions, and the dynamic nature of the situation.

The court also found no error in the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and sought leave to appeal his four-year global sentence.

The conviction appeal was abandoned by the appellant.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge ignored mitigating circumstances and rigidly applied sentencing ranges.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge was aware of the appellant's background and considered rehabilitative potential.

It also held that while rigid application of ranges is an error, it only warrants intervention if the sentence is disproportionate.

The court found the sentence fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant, Arthur Colucci, appealed a judgment declaring that he held a land use permit in trust for himself and the respondents (his brother and brother-in-law) as beneficial owners.

The core issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding an undocumented trust agreement existed, particularly regarding the certainty of intention, given the appellant's alternate explanation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's application of an objective standard to ascertain intention, considering all surrounding circumstances and the parties' conduct, and deferring to the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility.

The Auditor General of Ontario sought declarations that it had the authority under the Auditor General Act to compel grant recipients, specifically Laurentian University, to provide information and records subject to solicitor-client, litigation, or settlement privilege for audit purposes.

Laurentian University argued that the Act did not contain the clear and unambiguous language required to abrogate such fundamental privileges.

The court dismissed the Auditor General's application, holding that sections 10 and 27.1 of the Auditor General Act did not explicitly or unambiguously confer the power to compel disclosure of privileged information, and that privilege cannot be abrogated by inference.

The appellant, Kellie-Lynne Gracie, appealed her conviction for robbery.

She argued that the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and made an unreasonable inference regarding her involvement in the robbery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge, despite using the term "prima facie," did not reverse the onus of proof or improperly use the appellant's failure to testify as a make-weight.

The court concluded that the cumulative circumstantial evidence reasonably supported the trial judge's inference that the appellant was a party to the planned robbery.

The applicant, Arthur Rule, sought leave to appeal his 22-month custodial sentence for possessing and accessing child pornography and bail pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted both applications.

The sentencing judge had misstated the law regarding the availability of conditional sentences for these offences and failed to adequately consider a conditional sentence as an alternative to incarceration.

Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated unnecessary hardship due to severe medical conditions requiring complex daily care that would be difficult to manage in custody.

The court found the appeal had sufficient merit and that detention was not necessary in the public interest, as there were no public safety or flight concerns.

The appellants, Xundong Qin and Cenith Air Inc., sued the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and three of its employees for malicious prosecution after the OSC's allegations against them were dismissed.

The respondents moved to strike the claim, arguing issue estoppel applied due to a prior Superior Court order by Pattillo J. that continued a freeze order, finding a "serious issue to be tried." The motion judge granted the strike.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the "serious issue to be tried" standard for continuing a freeze order is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable cause" required for malicious prosecution.

Therefore, the issue of reasonable and probable cause was not "necessarily bound up" in Pattillo J.'s decision, and issue estoppel did not apply.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed a one-year sentence for civil contempt imposed by the trial judge.

The appellant argued the sentence was excessive, that the judge was inflamed by the appellant's non-compliance with asset freezing and disclosure orders, and that the sentence was purely punitive rather than coercive.

The appellant also contended the sentence was out of line with other civil contempt cases.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence appropriate given the appellant's multiple opportunities to purge contempt, attempts to deceive the court, the brazen and deliberate nature of the contempt, the underlying $7 million civil fraud, and the lack of asset recovery despite the judge's delay in imposing sentence.

The appellant sought to set aside an order enforcing a settlement agreement.

The appellant was a fully informed participant in the settlement, acting on legal advice, and knowingly entered into the settlement structured in the manner challenged on appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no illegality or impropriety in the enforcement of the settlement and upheld the motion judge's decision to enforce it.

The court also upheld the costs award made by the motion judge.

In this class action appeal, the court considered whether the deemed undertaking rule under Rule 31.1.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to the names and number of class members who opted out of two companion class actions concerning municipal licensing fees for charitable and religious fundraising events.

The appellants had engaged in a public campaign during the opt-out period to encourage class members to opt out, which the class actions judge found created undue influence.

A protection order was imposed preventing disclosure of opt-out information during a reconsideration period.

After the reconsideration period, the appellants sought to lift the protection order.

The Divisional Court held that the deemed undertaking rule applied to the opt-out information.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the opt-out information is statutorily created information not subject to the deemed undertaking rule, and that class members should be treated as akin to parties whose identities are entitled to be known by the actual parties and the public.

Enrique Kachuka brought a motion under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude seized currency as evidence in a forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act.

Kachuka argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrants of his vehicle and apartment was legally insufficient, leading to an unreasonable search and seizure in breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

He also contended that police breached his s. 8 rights by submitting a report of seized items past the statutory deadline and with technical errors.

The court found that the issuing Justice of the Peace had reasonable grounds to issue the search warrants, as police surveillance and corroborated confidential informant information established a sufficient nexus between observed drug transactions and Kachuka's apartment.

The court also determined that the reporting delays and errors did not constitute a meaningful infringement of s. 8 rights, as there was no residual privacy interest in the seized cash.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the forfeiture application was to proceed.

The appellants (tenant and its successor) repudiated a commercial lease for an industrial property owned by the respondent.

The respondent was forced to sell the property and sued for damages.

The trial judge awarded $1,277,000 in damages, including lost rental profits and lost capital appreciation.

The appellants appealed, arguing the sale at fair market value fully mitigated damages and that lost capital appreciation was too remote.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that damages for lost capital appreciation were too remote under the Hadley v. Baxendale test, that the property was sold at fair market value, and that damages should be calculated using a discounted cash flow analysis based on the 2013 sale price with appropriate deductions for mitigation.

Following conviction on charges of Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer, the defendant, a former Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with 100 hours of community service.

The defendant had directed the wiping of computer hard drives in the Office of the Premier to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and anticipated legislative committee production orders regarding the gas plant controversy.

The court found the offence struck at the heart of democratic accountability and transparency, warranting incarceration despite the defendant's otherwise exemplary character and community contributions.

David Livingston, Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, and Laura Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Strategy, were charged with Breach of Trust by a Public Official, Commit Mischief to Data, and Unauthorized Use of a Computer.

The Crown abandoned the Breach of Trust charge.

The defendants were accused of directing the wiping of twenty computers in the Office of the Premier during the transition from Premier McGuinty to Premier Wynne in early 2013, allegedly to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and potential Legislative Standing Committee Production Orders related to the controversial cancellation and relocation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.

The Crown alleged the defendants obtained administrative rights through deception and hired an outside IT consultant to indiscriminately wipe hard drives.

The defendants claimed they sought only to delete personal information and Liberal Party documents from departing staff computers.

Justice Lipson found Livingston guilty on both remaining counts (Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer) but acquitted Miller due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge of Livingston's deceptive means in obtaining administrative rights.