Glenroy Kendal Bastien

The appellant was intercepted at an airport with over $100,000 in U.S. currency concealed in his luggage and on his person.

The respondent successfully applied for civil forfeiture of the funds under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

On appeal, the appellant argued the application judge erred in finding the funds were proceeds of unlawful activity and in denying relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the appellant was acting as a cash courier and was not an innocent owner entitled to relief.

The tenant appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing his applications as vexatious and finding he had abandoned the rental unit before the landlord changed the locks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction is limited to questions of law under s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and the tenant failed to identify any error of law.

The Board had ample evidence to conclude the applications were vexatious and to reject the tenant's credibility regarding alleged rent payments.

The landlord sought a review of a motion judge's decision refusing to set aside a Registrar's Order that dismissed his appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board for delay.

The landlord argued he was denied a fair hearing before the motion judge because he was not properly served with the tenants' responding materials.

The Divisional Court allowed the landlord to make all arguments he would have made originally, but ultimately dismissed the motion, finding no adequate explanation for the delay and no merit to the appeal.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence that was discoverable at the time of the original hearing, which the landlord had chosen not to participate in after his adjournment request was denied.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel revoking his license to practice law after he was found to be ungovernable.

The appellant argued that the panels misapprehended evidence regarding his remorse, character, discipline history, and a proposed supervision plan, and failed to consider systemic racism.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the disciplinary panels' decisions were reasonable, entitled to deference, and that the appellant failed to establish a causal connection between his race and the professional misconduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Toronto Appeal Division recommending his expulsion for academic offences involving forged transcripts.

The applicant argued the Appeal Division failed to properly weigh mitigating factors, including his remorse, first-offender status, and expert evidence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Appeal Division's decision on penalty was entitled to high deference.

The court concluded the Appeal Division's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible, and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a motion to enforce a family arbitration award arising from minutes of settlement reached during mediation, while the respondent moved to set aside the settlement and award.

The respondent alleged she lacked the capacity to understand the agreement due to medication and anxiety during the mediation.

The court held that the respondent failed to establish incapacity or that the applicant had knowledge or constructive notice of any incapacity at the time of settlement.

The psychological evidence did not establish that the respondent was incapable of understanding the proceedings.

The court therefore enforced the arbitration award and dismissed the motion to set aside the minutes of settlement.

The appellant appealed a conviction for criminal harassment, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to provide meaningful reasons, and improperly applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.D. The appeal court reviewed the record and found the trial was straightforward, with credibility as the central issue.

The trial judge rejected the appellant’s theory that the complainants fabricated allegations to interfere with a firearms licence appeal and found the appellant’s testimony not credible.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied the W.D. framework and provided reasons grounded in the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university committee's decision to involuntarily withdraw him from a radiological technology program following a patient safety incident during a clinical practicum.

The applicant argued he was denied natural justice because the primary witness against him submitted a written statement and was not cross-examined.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant's counsel never requested to cross-examine the witness, and the committee's decision was reasonable and within the core academic functions of the university.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to set aside a default judgment arising from non-payment of a truck lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's reasons were adequate and that the appellant failed to move promptly, lacked a sufficient explanation for her default, and failed to provide evidence of a commercially unreasonable sale.

The moving party sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its appeal for delay.

The underlying action involved a claim against environmental consultants for allegedly overstating PCB contamination, which was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to set aside the Registrar's order, finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain its delay and, crucially, that the appeal lacked merit because the principal of the moving party admitted on discovery that he knew all material facts to start a claim well before the limitation period expired.