Jacquie Dagher

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for threats to cause death and bodily harm to his biological mother, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition requiring him to remain detained in the secure forensic unit of the Brockville Mental Health Centre with only supervised access to the hospital grounds.

The appellant accepted the detention requirement but objected to the supervised access restriction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was within the range of reasonable outcomes based on the appellant's high risk to reoffend, anti-social behaviour, serious criminal record, high psychopathy score, and potentially unassessed sadistic paraphilia.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition detaining a not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) accused in a secure forensic unit.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding that she posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board failed to properly apply the legal test for "significant threat" under section 672.5401 of the Criminal Code, which requires a serious risk of serious physical or psychological harm from criminal conduct.

The Board's reasons did not adequately analyze either the risk or gravity of psychological harm.

The appeal was allowed and a new hearing was directed.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 6, 2017.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge and argued against residing in a group home, preferring to live with either his friend or stepfather.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supporting the Board's refusal to grant a conditional discharge and its requirement that the appellant continue residing in the group home.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable with respect to treatment with psychotropic medication.

The Board had limited the appellant's cross-examination regarding the side effects of Clozapine, ruling it irrelevant because the respondent physician had stated he intended only to administer Abilify (Aripiprazole), not Clozapine.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, amending the Board's order to narrow the scope of authorized treatment to specifically "Aripiprazole" rather than all psychotropic medications, thereby curing the procedural fairness concern without requiring a new hearing.

The moving parties, former solicitors for the plaintiff, sought leave to intervene in three medical negligence actions.

The plaintiff had commenced a solicitor's negligence action against them for allegedly missing a limitation period.

The moving parties argued they had an interest in the medical actions because the outcome would affect their liability.

The court refused leave to intervene in the main medical actions, finding the solicitors had no involvement in the medical care and their participation could prejudice the existing parties.

However, the court granted them leave to intervene in the pending motion for judgment regarding the limitation issues.

This decision addresses costs following an application where the applicant was granted a prescriptive easement, though in narrower terms than initially sought.

The applicant requested substantial indemnity costs of over $72,000, while the respondents sought partial indemnity costs of over $21,000, each claiming to be the successful party.

The court found the applicant's costs claim "breath-taking" and disproportionate to the modest value of the property and the limited scope of the argument.

Considering that the applicant sought an unlimited right-of-way but received an order reflecting only occasional use, and the respondents had not offered to formalize this occasional use, the court determined that neither party was entirely successful in their costs positions.

The Hospital defendants sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity, asserting their offer to dismiss the action without costs should not trigger an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The court, considering Rule 57 factors, ordered the plaintiff to pay $9,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis to the Hospital defendants.

The applicant sought a prescriptive easement over the respondents' property to access her landlocked property.

The court found that the applicant established the necessary elements for a prescriptive easement, specifically for pedestrian use, limited to a maximum of twice per year, for a 20-year period commencing in 1979.

The respondents were ordered to provide the applicant with a key or other means to open the gate to enjoy her access.

This decision addresses the costs of a motion brought by Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and Detective Tracy Martel to strike the claim.

The Attorney General submitted that there should be no order as to costs, a position with which the plaintiff, Sheridan Margaret Diaz, did not take serious issue.

The court ultimately made no order for costs on the motion.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including a nurse, her employer, a police detective, and Ontario, for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conversion following her acquittal on a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her spouse.

The defendants moved to strike the claims under Rules 21 and 25.11.

The court struck the claims against the nurse and her employer, finding they did not directly cause the arrest or initiate the prosecution.

The court also struck the malicious prosecution and conversion claims against the police defendants for failing to plead material facts.

However, the court refused to strike the false arrest and imprisonment claims against the police on limitation grounds, finding it was not plain and obvious that the limitation period began on the date of arrest rather than the date of acquittal.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall in a hotel lobby.

The plaintiff slipped on a wet tile floor that had just been mopped behind him while he was checking in.

The court found that the hotel cleaner and desk clerk failed to verbally warn the plaintiff of the hazard, and the wet floor sign was placed behind him out of his sightline.

The court held that the defendants failed to meet their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and found them liable for the plaintiff's injuries.