Greg Lafontaine

This decision addresses sentencing following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a tragic workplace drowning incident at New Leaf: Living and Learning Together Inc. The court found both the corporation and an individual supervisor, Colin Lang, guilty of multiple counts of failing to take reasonable precautions to protect worker safety.

The judgment carefully balances aggravating factors such as the death of a worker and recklessness, with mitigating factors including the defendants' community contributions and financial circumstances.

The court imposed substantial fines on New Leaf, mindful of its critical role and financial constraints, and a significant fine on Mr. Lang without incarceration, emphasizing proportionality and deterrence in OHSA sentencing.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposed order to refuse to issue him horseperson-groom and horseperson-owner licences under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 1992.

The Registrar refused the licences based on the appellant's extensive criminal and regulatory record, including fraud and securities offences, outstanding restitution orders, and his failure to fully disclose his record on the licence application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the refusal, finding reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm following an incident where he was shot at, chased his attackers in a vehicle, and engaged in a physical altercation with one of them.

The trial judge found the appellant acted in self-defence initially but used excessive force once the attacker was subdued, and concluded the bodily harm occurred during this latter phase.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge's conclusion regarding when the bodily harm occurred was unreasonable, as it could have happened during the car crash or the initial lawful struggle.

The court set aside the conviction for assault causing bodily harm, substituted a finding of guilt for common assault, and imposed an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the grounds of a Charter section 8 violation relating to an unreasonable search and seizure.

The trial judge found that the appellant had abandoned his house and car keys when approached by police, thereby defeating any reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the police officers' testimony.

The court also rejected arguments of uneven scrutiny and misapprehension of evidence.

The applicants, Nicola Nero, Dean Wiwchar, and Martino Caputo, sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of their right to a trial within a reasonable time.

This application followed their convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and first-degree murder.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay (considering it collectively for co-accused), and whether the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances (discrete events such as preliminary inquiry issues, counsel unavailability, interlocutory appeals, and extensive disclosure from multiple police forces) or case complexity.

The court found that after deducting periods attributable to defence delay, the net delay for each applicant was below the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

Furthermore, the court determined that the case's inherent complexity, the involvement of multiple defendants and prosecutions, voluminous disclosure from various police agencies, and an international aspect constituted exceptional circumstances justifying any delay beyond the ceiling.

The court also considered the case as transitional, noting the parties' reasonable reliance on the law as it existed prior to Jordan.

Consequently, the applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed, as no breach of the applicants' s. 11(b) rights was demonstrated.

The applicants were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to murder and first-degree murder.

Prior to sentencing, they applied for a stay of the conspiracy count, arguing that entering convictions for both offences would violate the rule against multiple convictions for the same delict.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the offences lacked both the factual and legal nexus required to engage the rule.

The conspiracy was complete weeks before the murder, and the legal elements of the offences protect different societal interests.

The appellant was sought for extradition by the United States to face charges of conspiracy, wire fraud, and securities fraud.

He appealed his committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

On the committal appeal, the appellant argued the extradition judge failed to weigh the evidence as required by recent Supreme Court jurisprudence; the Court of Appeal held that a limited weighing of the evidence would not have changed the result.

On the judicial review, the appellant argued the Minister lacked jurisdiction to order surrender due to a 'misalignment' between the foreign charges, the committal order, and the alleged conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, finding that the Extradition Act, the applicable treaty, and the principle of double criminality require only that the alleged conduct constitute an offence in Canada, not that it precisely mirror the foreign charges.

Both the appeal and the application for judicial review were dismissed.

The Crown brought ex parte applications under s. 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code for DNA databank orders against two repeat sexual offenders on parole.

The issuing judge granted the orders ex parte.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the provision and the ex parte procedure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the provision but found that the issuing judge lost jurisdiction by proceeding ex parte without any evidence justifying the need to do so.

The appeals were allowed and the authorizations quashed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of instruments adapted and intended to be used to commit forgery and sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment followed by one year of probation.

After the Supreme Court of Canada restored his convictions, the Court of Appeal considered his sentence appeal.

The Court found no error in principle by the trial judge but reduced the sentence to six months' imprisonment to account for the almost five years the appellant spent on bail pending appeal without breaching his conditions.