Graeme Alexander Hamilton

The Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) appealed a motion judge's order finding it in civil contempt of a 2023 consent order and imposing a $30,000 fine.

The consent order prohibited the OAA from issuing licences to architectural technologists based on an internal policy.

The motion judge found the OAA breached the order when its Registration Committee directed the issuance of limited licences under section 25 of the Architects Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the contempt finding, holding that the motion judge failed to establish that the consent order clearly and unambiguously prohibited the statutory exemption process, failed to find intentional disobedience, and failed to properly exercise discretion regarding the appropriateness of a contempt finding.

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.

The Attorney General applied for restraint and management orders under the Criminal Code for cryptocurrency held by Binance, alleged to be offence-related property from a fraud.

Binance opposed the application on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the Unifund test for prescriptive legislative jurisdiction applied and required assessing the reliability of the cryptocurrency tracing.

The court held that the Unifund test does not apply because the legislation explicitly authorizes extraterritorial reach and the orders involve enforcement rather than prescriptive jurisdiction.

Instead, the Brecknell test applies.

Consequently, the reliability of the cryptocurrency tracing was deemed irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue.

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, Binance, sought to extend the time to perfect its appeal in the Divisional Court pending the Court of Appeal's decision on whether to join this appeal with a related leave to appeal application.

The court declined to defer the appeal, holding that the appeal should proceed in the Divisional Court on a regular schedule unless and until the Court of Appeal orders otherwise under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Attorney General for Ontario applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a provincial court judge's refusal to issue a general warrant and assistance order.

The police sought to use the general warrant to seize cryptocurrency held on a third-party exchange (Binance) by compelling the exchange to transfer the funds to a police-controlled wallet.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the general warrant was not available because other provisions in the Criminal Code, specifically Part XII.2 relating to digital assets warrants and restraint orders, provide a substantive equivalent for seizing such assets.

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.

The applicant, a crypto asset trading platform, sought judicial review of an investigation order and summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant argued the investigation was precluded by a prior undertaking and constituted an abuse of process, and that the summons violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the undertaking contained an express reservation of rights that permitted the investigation.

The court declined to decide the Charter issue, holding it should first be raised before the Commission.

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.

Binance Holdings Limited applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal under s. 144(1) of the Securities Act to revoke an investigation order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission under s. 11.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing on whether it had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the 2022 amendments to the Securities Act separated the Commission's executive and adjudicative functions, and that the word 'Commission' in s. 144(1) does not include the Tribunal.

Consequently, only the Commission, exercising its executive function, can revoke its own s. 11 order.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party, a crypto asset trading platform, sought a stay of an Investigation Order and Summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission pending judicial review.

The moving party argued the summons was overbroad, an abuse of process, and violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, noting the reduced expectation of privacy in regulated business records, and concluded the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

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.

The appellants were convicted of agreeing to bribe a foreign public official, the Indian Minister of Civil Aviation, contrary to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, including unreasonable delay, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the trial judge's refusal to declare a mistrial following late Crown disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the jurisdictional and delay arguments but allowed the appeal on the basis of the mistrial application.

The Court found that the Crown's late disclosure of communications with a key witness and information regarding a central defence exhibit impaired the overall fairness of the trial process.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

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.