H. Evans

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and uttering threats.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and cannabis use disorder, had been living independently in the community under a Conditional Discharge.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge with amended conditions, including the removal of travel duration limits and substance consumption prohibitions, to foster his reintegration and transition to community-based care.

The applicant, Minotar Holdings Inc., sought a declaration that certain sections of the Greenbelt Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 and the Greenbelt Act, 2005 violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by legislating a judicial outcome and depriving the Superior Court of its jurisdiction.

The court found that the amendments did not violate the Constitution, as the legislature has the authority to extinguish causes of action and define land use boundaries, provided it uses clear and explicit statutory language.

The application was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Jayson Cacdac pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

The Crown sought 16 months of actual incarceration, while the defence proposed a 9-12 month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 16-month conditional sentence, including house arrest and community service, followed by 12 months of probation.

The decision balanced the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, considering the accused's first-offender status, remorse, and the victim's vulnerability and the impact of the assault.

The applicants, who were in pretrial detention, brought an application for a stay of proceedings or damages, alleging that COVID-19 restrictions at the detention centre violated their rights.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court found that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary responses to the pandemic, comparable to restrictions faced by the general public.

Concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success, the court summarily dismissed the application.

C.J. pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault against his 16-year-old step-daughter, which occurred while she was sleeping.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less one day, while the defence proposed six months' custody.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the breach of trust inherent in the step-father relationship, and the assault occurring while the victim was asleep.

Mitigating factors included C.J.'s lack of a prior criminal record, steady employment, and a guilty plea that spared the victim from testifying.

The court imposed a 16-month custodial sentence, along with a 20-year SOIRA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 2-year probation order.

The parties, former spouses, brought competing motions in a long-running family law dispute.

The wife sought to stay the husband's motion to change support and possession orders due to his failure to pay a previously ordered equalization payment of nearly $400,000 and over $13,000 in costs.

The husband sought an order evicting the wife from the matrimonial home and leave to amend his motion to claim spousal support.

The court found the husband had no reasonable excuse for failing to pay the equalization and costs.

Relying on the Family Law Rules regarding failure to obey court orders, the court stayed the husband's motion to change until he paid the equalization judgment and costs.

If he complies, he may amend his pleadings and the wife must bring a motion to determine her right to possess the home.

Hydro One Networks Inc. sought unredacted accident reports from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for nine specific motor vehicle accidents and a broad-based order for all future accident reports involving Hydro One.

The OPP consented to provide the specific reports but opposed the broad order, citing obligations under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court dismissed the broad-based application, finding that the Highway Traffic Act does not obligate the OPP to provide such information without a court order, given FIPPA responsibilities, and that judicial oversight is necessary for requests for personal information from non-parties.

The application for the nine specific reports was granted on consent.