Gregory A. Campbell

The accused brought a constitutional challenge to the summary conviction provisions of sections 151 and 152 of the Criminal Code, arguing that mandatory minimum jail sentences of 14 days violate the right to trial by jury under section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of minors.

The court dismissed the application, holding that section 11(f) protects the right to jury trial only where the maximum punishment for an offence is imprisonment for five years or more, and that mandatory minimum sentences do not trigger this protection.

Following the accused's conviction for armed robbery, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation, the Crown obtained a production order under s. 487.012 of the Criminal Code to obtain records from the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society for use in a sentencing hearing and dangerous offender application.

The accused challenged the production order on grounds that it was invalid and violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court ruled that the production order was valid and that the sealed records were relevant to sentencing and the dangerous offender proceeding.

The court ordered the records unsealed and made available to the Crown, subject to later rulings on admissibility as documentary evidence.

Following judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding, the court determined costs based on written submissions.

The applicant had made a formal Rule 49 offer to settle that the respondents rejected prior to cross-examinations and the hearing.

The court found that the judgment obtained was at least as favourable as the offer and therefore the cost consequences under Rule 49.10(1) applied, entitling the applicant to partial indemnity costs before the offer and substantial indemnity costs afterward.

Considering Rule 57.01 factors, including the complexity of the matter, the public interest role of the applicant, and credibility findings against the respondents, the court fixed costs payable to the applicant.

Costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees and disbursements were ordered jointly and severally against certain respondents.

The accused were charged with possession of cannabis marijuana and production of cannabis marijuana following a search of their home.

The accused brought a section 24(2) Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during the search.

The court found that the search warrant was issued without sufficient grounds.

The officer relied on an anonymous tip from Crime Stoppers, verification of the accused's residence, and minimal marijuana residue found in a garbage pull.

The court concluded that objectively, there were insufficient grounds to believe the accused were growing marijuana.

The warrant should not have been issued, constituting a violation of the accused's section 8 Charter rights.

Despite the officer's professional conduct and the seriousness of marijuana grow operations generally, the court excluded the evidence, considering the modest amount of marijuana found was clearly for personal use and the intrusive nature of a home search.

The Attorney General sought forfeiture of $138,650 seized during a police search conducted in the course of a cocaine trafficking investigation.

The respondents asserted that the funds were legitimate family savings accumulated for education and housing.

The court rejected the respondents’ explanations as inconsistent and not credible, noting the storage method of the cash, the presence of a drug dealer’s fingerprint inside the safe where the majority of the funds were stored, and evidence linking the residence to ongoing drug trafficking.

The court also found that the respondents had misrepresented their financial circumstances and failed to disclose the cash assets while receiving government disability benefits.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the funds were proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 and ordered forfeiture.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and breaches following his arrest on June 14, 2006.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and trial to determine whether the arrest was lawful and whether evidence obtained from a search incident to arrest should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused moved to exclude evidence based on alleged breaches of s. 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the arrest was unlawful and the detention arbitrary, as the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds based on an unreliable confidential informant tip and minimal corroborating observations.

The court excluded the evidence seized, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Following three motions in which the plaintiff was entirely successful, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable by the defendants.

The court emphasized the principle of indemnity and the broader purposes of costs awards, including encouraging settlement and discouraging unnecessary litigation steps.

One defendant failed to comply with Rule 57.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by not delivering a Form 57B cost outline, which limited the court’s ability to assess proportionality and undermined the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s claimed costs.

The court found the plaintiff’s preparation and allocation of legal work reasonable given the complexity and importance of the motions.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The court determined costs following a successful motion arising from a dispute over the interpretation and enforcement of a formal Offer to Settle.

The moving party achieved complete success on the motion and sought costs against the opposing party, who had contested whether acceptance of the offer resolved the entire action.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and relevant appellate authority, the court found the opposing party’s litigation conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, including prolonging proceedings and dissipating assets contrary to a prior order.

The court awarded the successful party $15,000 for the motion and assessed the opposing party’s allowable legal expenses under the wording of the accepted offer.

After calculating permitted legal expenses and applying a set-off between the competing amounts, the court determined the net deduction applicable to the judgment.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of section 7 rights based on excessive force during arrest and loss of evidence (14 minutes of DVD recording from the breath room).

The court found that the accused sustained injuries during arrest including abrasions to his face, a cut above his eye, a bump on his head, a severely injured right thigh, and sore shoulders.

The court accepted the accused's testimony that he was subjected to excessive force, including a knee strike to his leg and multiple blows to his back while being restrained.

The court also found that the loss of the final 14 minutes of the breath room recording constituted a breach of the accused's right to make full answer and defence due to unacceptable negligence in evidence preservation.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a college student intern.

After the conclusion of testimony, the defence sought to reopen the trial to introduce fresh evidence from a former college instructor regarding an alleged assault allegation the complainant had made against the instructor approximately three months prior to the incident at issue.

The defence argued this evidence was relevant to the complainant's credibility and motive to fabricate.

The court dismissed the application, finding the proposed evidence was irrelevant and collateral to the main issue, and that allowing it would interfere with the orderly conduct of the trial.

Following a settlement conference in a family law proceeding concerning custody and relocation of three children, the court was required to determine costs for that step in the litigation.

The parties ultimately resolved the substantive issues through Minutes of Settlement permitting the children to relocate to the father's care in British Columbia, including arrangements for ongoing medical treatment for one child.

The court found that the mother had acted unreasonably by pursuing delay tactics despite recommendations from the children's counsel and medical professionals supporting relocation.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering proportionality and reasonableness, the court ordered substantial costs against the mother for the preparation and attendance relating to the settlement conference and motions.

Payment of the costs was deferred until the parties’ property equalization or trial.

The plaintiff creditor brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation over a matrimonial home transferred from the debtor husband to his wife after the plaintiff had commenced a construction lien trust action.

Following a later judgment against the debtor and unsuccessful collection efforts, the plaintiff commenced a fraudulent conveyance action seeking to set aside the transfer.

The court held that under s.103 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 42.01, a certificate of pending litigation may issue where there is a reasonable claim to an interest in land pending trial.

Given the timing of the transfer, the nominal consideration, and the existence of a judgment debt, the plaintiff established a sufficient interest in the property to justify preservation of the asset.

The certificate of pending litigation was ordered to issue, with costs to the plaintiff.

Following a family law motion concerning financial disclosure and interim support, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant had achieved complete success on her motion while the respondent was unsuccessful on his cross‑motion.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant appellate authority on proportionality and fairness in costs awards.

Although the respondent argued that disclosure would have been produced after his business year‑end, the court held that bringing the motion was reasonable given prior delay and incomplete disclosure.

A costs award of $2,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST was granted, with a portion enforceable through the Director under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

Following a traffic stop, the officer detained the accused for approximately ten minutes while waiting for an approved screening device (ASD) to arrive, without informing the accused of the reason for detention or his right to counsel.

The court found that the officer breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) by failing to make the ASD demand forthwith as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The officer's apparent belief that he could detain the accused indefinitely without explanation, combined with his lack of understanding regarding when detention obligations arise, led the court to exclude the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

A voir dire was held to determine whether Edward Liu, a conditionally accredited Mandarin interpreter, was qualified to interpret for two Mandarin-speaking complainant witnesses at a preliminary hearing.

The Crown sought to have Liu qualified despite his conditional accreditation status from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that conditionally accredited interpreters should only be used for less complex proceedings.

The court found Liu competent and capable of interpreting and qualified him to serve as interpreter at the preliminary hearing.

The court determined costs arising from two family law motion attendances concerning custody, support, and related interim issues.

The moving party sought substantial recovery after expending significant legal fees, including retaining out-of-town counsel and multiple lawyers.

The court held that litigation costs must remain reasonable and proportionate, emphasizing that a losing litigant should not be burdened with inflated fees resulting from a party’s choice to retain expensive metropolitan counsel or excessive legal staffing.

While the moving party was more successful on the core interim issues and the responding party’s unilateral removal of the children precipitated the litigation, the court reduced the claimed costs substantially.

The court awarded fixed costs for each attendance and imposed a significant costs sanction reflecting the responding party’s self-help conduct.