Graeme Alexander Hamilton

A reference to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning whether legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada.

The majority (Tulloch C.J.O., Gillese, Hourigan and Dawe JJ.A.) answered affirmatively, finding that section 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code permits Ontario to conduct and manage a lottery scheme with international pooled liquidity, provided Ontario continues to conduct and manage the Ontario-based aspects of the scheme in accordance with provincial law.

The majority rejected the application of the real and substantial connection test and distinguished the Earth Future decisions.

Van Rensburg J.A. dissented, arguing that the Proposed Model would contravene the Criminal Code because it would require Ontario to conduct and manage aspects of the lottery scheme outside Ontario's territorial boundaries, contrary to the plain meaning of "in that province" in section 207(1)(a).

Binance Holdings Limited appealed orders from the Divisional Court and Ontario Securities Commission regarding an investigation into Binance's operations in Ontario.

The Commission had issued a summons demanding production of documents and communications relating to alleged violations of the Securities Act.

Binance challenged the summons as unconstitutionally overbroad under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Divisional Court erred in declining to judicially review the Charter arguments and that the summons was an unreasonable seizure because it lacked a reasonable foundation to believe the demanded documents were relevant to the investigation.

This decision addresses the procedure for determining solicitor-client privilege over documents seized during the execution of search warrants at the offices of Romspen Investment Corporation and an employee’s residence.

The court considered whether the applicant must provide particulars of the allegations, whether an independent third-party forensic analyst should be appointed to handle electronic documents, and whether amicus curiae should be appointed.

The court declined to order particulars, ordered the appointment of a third-party analyst to copy electronic documents, and deferred the decision on appointing amicus curiae.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of protecting solicitor-client privilege and outlines the context-specific procedures courts may adopt.

The moving party, Binance Holdings Limited, sought an order under ss. 6(2) and (3) of the Courts of Justice Act to join two appeals: one to the Divisional Court from an OSC decision and another to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision.

Binance argued the appeals were "in the same proceeding" and combining them would serve the administration of justice.

The Ontario Securities Commission opposed, arguing the appeals were distinct and combining them would cause delay and bypass appellate hierarchy.

The court granted the motion, finding the appeals were in the same proceeding due to identical parties, facts, legal issues, and legal origin (investigation order and summons).

The court also found that combining the appeals would allow for a full and final resolution of the jurisdictional issue, mitigate the risk of inconsistent findings, and secure a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination of the issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to adduce evidence and for a confidentiality order in the context of a reference regarding the legality of an online provincial lottery scheme permitting international play.

The court granted leave to the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Canadian Lottery Coalition Members to file their proposed evidence, finding it potentially helpful for the reference panel.

The court dismissed the Canadian Gaming Association's motion for a confidentiality order, ruling that alleged reputational harm was a private interest insufficient to override court openness, especially as the information was largely public.

The appellant, Matthew Paik, initiated private prosecutions against six police officers, alleging they illegally preserved surveillance video.

The Crown intervened to withdraw these charges, asserting a lack of reasonable and probable grounds for prosecution.

Paik sought certiorari in the Superior Court, arguing the Crown's intervention was in bad faith and an abuse of process.

The Superior Court dismissed his application, finding the Crown's actions appropriate and no evidence of bad faith.

Paik appealed this decision, as well as an earlier order concerning the disclosure of police officers' birth dates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Crown's discretion to withdraw private prosecutions when reasonable and probable grounds are absent, and noting the appellant failed to demonstrate bad faith or abuse of process.

The court also found the appeal regarding the disclosure of birth dates to be moot given the withdrawal of the underlying charges.

East West Investment Management Corporation sought an order to pay funds into court or a declaration that its continued management of funds for Thomas Higgins and the TRH Foundation did not contravene the Criminal Code, due to a risk that the funds might constitute proceeds of crime from a German tax fraud scheme involving Maple Bank.

The court, exercising its inherent and supervisory jurisdiction over trusts, granted the order allowing East West to pay CDN$4,398,168 into court, with the consent of the respondents, to mitigate East West's risk of liability under money laundering laws.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral award and a costs award, and for leave to appeal, under sections 45 and 46(1)6 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The application alleged procedural unfairness, exceeding jurisdiction by the arbitrator, and insufficient/non-independent reasons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitration process was fair, the parties had ample opportunity to present their cases, the arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction by not conducting a mediation (as the parties had moved to adjudication), and the reasons for the award were adequate and independent.

This is an appeal concerning confidentiality orders in a civil action involving a minor plaintiff (P1), two minor defendants (D1, D2), and a school (XYZ School) with its employees.

The original motion judge had issued broad sealing and publication ban orders to protect the identities of the minor parties, extending to the school and its employees.

The appellants (P1 and Toronto Star) argued these orders were overbroad.

The Court of Appeal, applying the reformulated Sherman Estate test, found that while protecting the minors' identities was an important public interest, anonymizing the school and its employees was not necessary.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the broad sealing order and limiting the anonymity and publication bans to only the minor parties and their litigation guardians, along with specific identifying information, while allowing the school's identity to be public.

This is a motion to quash appeals of a non-publication and sealing order.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order was final for the media (Toronto Star) as it finally determined their constitutional rights under s. 2(b) of the Charter, allowing their appeal to proceed as of right.

For the plaintiffs, the order was interlocutory, but the court exercised its discretion under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to hear their appeal concurrently due to the interrelation of the issues.

The motion to quash the appeals was dismissed.

Robert Barra and Shailesh Govindia were convicted of agreeing to bribe the Indian Minister of Civil Aviation under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

Barra, CEO of Cryptometrics US, retained Govindia to facilitate a $500,000 bribe for a facial recognition software contract with Air India, with potential for an additional $1.5 million.

Govindia, however, misappropriated the bribe funds, leading to the scheme's failure and no contract award.

The Crown sought 4 years for Barra and 3 years for Govindia, while the defence proposed 2 years for both.

Considering mitigating factors such as no prior criminal records, the unsuccessful nature of the bribe, and economic hardship, alongside aggravating factors like financial motivation and the seriousness of the offence, the court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment for each offender.

The accused applied for a mistrial due to the Crown's late disclosure of information, including an agreement not to use a witness's statements against him and email exchanges questioning the authenticity of an exhibit.

The court applied the Stinchcombe and Dixon principles on disclosure and the right to make full answer and defence.

The court found that while disclosure was late, the accused failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the late disclosure affected the trial's outcome or fairness, or impaired their ability to make full answer and defence.

The remedy granted was to prevent the Crown from calling reply evidence, including recalling the witness to change his testimony, thereby preserving the accused's tactical position.

This application addressed which of two innocent parties, Bank of Montreal (BMO) or Asia Pacific International Inc. (API), should bear the loss from a third-party fraud.

An imposter fraudulently obtained a wire transfer of $428,000 from a BMO client's account to API's account for a gold purchase.

API subsequently released the gold to the fraudster.

BMO sought recovery based on a mistake of fact.

The court applied the "two innocent victims" framework, finding BMO was in a better position to prevent the fraud due to its lack of diligence in verifying the imposter's identity.

The court also determined that API could rely on the change of position defence, as its conduct, while lacking diligence, did not constitute wrongful or illegal activity under the Proceeds of Crime Act that would preclude recovery.

BMO's application was dismissed, and the funds were ordered released to API.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add new parties and assert additional causes of action, including nuisance, negligence, and various Charter and international covenant claims.

The defendants opposed the amendments and brought motions to strike.

The court denied leave to add new Ministries/Ministers, dismissed claims based on international covenants as not actionable in domestic law, and rejected most Charter claims (specifically s. 7) on the basis of issue estoppel, as these issues had been previously determined by the Environmental Review Tribunal and upheld by the Divisional Court.

However, the court permitted amendments for nuisance and negligence claims against the K2 defendants, acknowledging that the alleged harms were now realized post-construction.

The action against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Director was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused's detention for approximately eight hours after providing the second breath sample breached his section 9 Charter rights and whether the breath samples should be excluded.

The court found that the accused was arbitrarily detained in breach of section 9 of the Charter because the officer in charge focused too narrowly on the breath readings without conducting a comprehensive assessment of all relevant circumstances.

However, the court declined to exclude the breath samples or stay the proceedings, finding no nexus between the post-evidence breach and the collection of the evidence, and determining that a stay was not warranted as this was not one of the clearest of cases.

This is a Dawson Motion brought by multiple defendants in a drug and firearm investigation known as Project Wheeler.

The defendants sought leave to cross-examine the affiant who deposed to the affidavit in support of a wiretap authorization granted by a Superior Court judge.

The defendants challenged two areas: claims about possession of firearms and statements that observations about meetings were indicative of drug trafficking.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate how cross-examination would undermine the preconditions for the wiretap authorization and that the allegations of sweeping generalizations and circular reasoning were not relevant to an attack on facial validity in the circumstances presented.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

A sergeant responded to a radio call about a possible impaired driver at an LCBO store and followed the accused's vehicle into an underground parking garage of an apartment building without attempting to stop him first.

The court found that the sergeant breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) by: (1) following the accused into the underground parking garage without legal authority or exigent circumstances; (2) delaying the administration of the approved screening device demand beyond the "forthwith" requirement of section 254(2) of the Criminal Code; and (3) failing to provide the accused with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The evidence of the breath samples was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and both charges were dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to failing to stop for police and dangerous driving following a high-speed pursuit involving multiple police agencies.

The offender, a First Nations individual, had a prior record involving driving-related offences but had undertaken significant rehabilitation efforts including completing an alcohol treatment program and attending Alcoholics Anonymous.

The court considered the sentencing principles under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code and the Gladue framework, weighing denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and the offender’s background circumstances.

The judge concluded that community safety would not be endangered and that a conditional sentence was appropriate for the dangerous driving offence.

The offender received credit for pre-trial custody, a conditional sentence order, probation, and a driving prohibition.