James A. Ramsay

The complainant, A., sought certiorari to quash a trial judge's decision regarding the admissibility of her sexual history evidence under s.276 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault trial.

The trial judge had admitted certain prior sexual activity as relevant to the accused's belief in communicated consent, while prohibiting its use for propensity reasoning.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no error of law going to jurisdiction and exercising its discretion to refuse interlocutory review, emphasizing the need to minimize delay in criminal trials and the non-final nature of the ruling at that stage.

The accused, Derek Horth, sought a review of a detention order issued by a Justice of the Peace.

Horth argued for release based on alleged material changes in circumstances, including an improved surety plan with increased financial commitment and electronic monitoring, and the public health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in custodial facilities.

He also claimed the Justice of the Peace made four errors of law during the initial bail hearing.

The Superior Court found no material changes in circumstances, noting the continued unsuitability of the proposed sureties due to their lack of oversight and understanding of the accused's criminal history.

The court also dismissed the alleged errors of law, affirming the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the Crown's strong case and the necessity of detention on tertiary grounds to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for review was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

This is an application by the accused, Jermaine Chapman, under s.520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order.

The accused sought release based on a new bail plan with strong sureties and electronic monitoring, public interest concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and potential trial delays.

The court found no error in the original justice's decision to detain and determined that the health emergency did not outweigh other considerations for detention.

The court also noted that while trial delays might occur, detention remained necessary and could be reviewed in the future.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for interim access to her child, who resided primarily with the respondent paternal grandmother.

The grandmother had suspended access due to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The court found no evidence that children are particularly vulnerable to the virus and noted that access should continue as ordered provided emergency orders are followed.

The court ordered that parenting time resume in accordance with the parties' prior parenting agreement.

The Respondent brought a motion to cite the Applicant for contempt of prior access orders concerning their 8-year-old daughter, and subsequently moved for directions to set a trial date for the contempt motion and enforce interim orders.

The court noted significant issues with the child's relationship with the Respondent, stemming from the Respondent's comportment, and the child's forceful refusal of contact.

The judge found the Respondent's tone imperious and his credibility reduced, concluding that the child's problems were complex and unlikely to be resolved by a contempt trial, with negligible chances of proving deliberate breach by the Applicant.

The motion for directions was dismissed without costs, and the contempt motion was adjourned for trial, with a recommendation for reconciliation counselling or a motion to change.

The accused sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, 48 years old with 84 prior convictions including breaches of recognizance and escapes, was found in possession of significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia.

The court considered the strong Crown case, the accused's extensive criminal record, and the unsuitability of the proposed surety.

Despite potential trial delays due to the pandemic and the prospect of COVID-19 in detention, the court found continued detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffending and lack of respect for court orders.

The bail review was dismissed.

The defendants sought costs following their successful motion for production of documents.

The court noted that the defendants had to bring the motion to obtain basic, relevant, and proportionate disclosure to which they were entitled, including documents the plaintiff had undertaken to provide.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants brought a motion for discovery to compel the plaintiff to produce medical, employment, and service dog records that were refused at his examination for discovery.

The plaintiff is suing the police for alleged physical and mental harm, loss of income, and loss of opportunity to train his dog as a service animal.

The court found the requested records relevant to damages and causation, and ordered the plaintiff to produce the records or provide proof of best efforts to obtain them.

The applicants, the estranged wife and children of the deceased, brought an application against the respondents, the executors of the deceased's estate.

The deceased had changed the beneficiary designation on his life insurance policy and an RRSP shortly before his death, which the applicants alleged breached a separation agreement.

The applicants sought immediate payment of the life insurance proceeds and an order that the RRSP proceeds be paid into court.

The court declined to order immediate payment or payment into court, noting potential limitation issues and a lack of evidence regarding the deceased's competence, but ordered the trustees to pass their accounts within 90 days and maintain the insurance proceeds in investment for support payments.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a prior motion where the applicants sought further relief, which was largely denied, and the executors (respondents) were ordered to pass accounts and restrict insurance disbursements.

Both parties sought costs.

The court found the respondents were successful on the costs issue, noting the motion's necessity stemmed from the applicants' unsupported claims.

The respondents, as trustees, were entitled to actual costs from the estate, and the applicants were ordered to partially indemnify the estate by paying $5,000 in costs to the estate.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Energy Board imposing a $155,000 administrative penalty for contraventions of the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010 related to the marketing of energy contracts.

On appeal, the appellant argued for the first time that the Board lost jurisdiction because the penalty was imposed outside the two-year limitation period in s. 112.5(2) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the new limitation period issue, finding it would benefit from the specialized tribunal's interpretation and required factual findings.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's arguments that the Board misapprehended evidence and improperly found systemic training deficiencies, concluding there were no errors of law or jurisdiction.

The applicant mother brought a motion to find the respondent father in contempt of court for allegedly failing to provide proof of life insurance, failing to update income disclosure, and failing to abide by access arrangements.

The court found that the father had not intentionally breached any of the orders.

He provided proof of life insurance upon changing jobs, the delay in income disclosure was minor and not proven to be intentional, and his text messages to arrange access with the child did not breach the order.

The motion for contempt was dismissed.

The applicant estate sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying survivor benefits following the death of a firefighter from a heart attack.

The Tribunal found that the statutory presumption for firefighters did not apply because the deceased had not attended a 'fire scene' within 24 hours of the heart attack, and that the injury did not otherwise arise out of and in the course of employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decision and its subsequent refusal to reconsider were reasonable and supported by the evidence and applicable policies.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to set aside an order terminating her tenancy with the respondent landlord.

The termination order was issued after the tenant failed to pay $100 per month towards rent arrears as previously ordered by the Board.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the tenant's disputes regarding the amount of arrears and maintenance issues were not questions of law, and that she could not raise the issue of lack of notice for the first time on appeal.

The tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, arguing he did not know disconnecting his fire alarm was illegal and that he missed the initial hearing because his agent cancelled.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The court noted the tenant failed to raise the knowledge issue before the Board and had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the initial hearing.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action moved to amend her statement of claim to add a related corporation as a co-defendant.

The court found that the proposed defendant operated from the same address, used the same personnel, and shared legal counsel with the named defendant.

Applying the test for misnomer, the court concluded that the proposed defendant would have known the claim was directed at it.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was granted.

The applicant father sought a temporary order for alternate weekend access, Wednesday evening access, special Christmas access, and an order for the respondent mother to enroll their 12-year-old daughter in reconciliation counselling.

The child, whose views were confirmed by a Voice of the Child report, did not wish to see her father due to his past infidelity and involving her in a secret.

The mother was not opposed to access but advocated for a gradual re-introduction.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding it not in the child's best interest to force access against her wishes, especially on an interim basis, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The Crown brought a bail review after the accused, an American national, was released on bail following his arrest at the border for smuggling three handguns and ammunition in hidden compartments.

The reviewing judge found that the initial justice gave excessive weight to the accused's lack of a criminal record and insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offence and the strong probability of conviction.

The court concluded that detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground.

The release order was vacated and the accused was ordered detained.

The accused applied under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order.

The accused presented new alibi evidence suggesting he was in another city at the time of one of the alleged offences.

However, the court noted that if the alibi were true, the accused was simultaneously in breach of two recognizances.

The court found that the impact of the new evidence on the probability of conviction was balanced by its negative impact on the court's ability to trust the accused to comply with release terms.

The application was dismissed.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a four-year-old child in extended society care without access for the purpose of adoption.

The parents opposed the motion, proposing alternative plans of care.

The court applied the principles of summary judgment in the child protection context and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that the parents' plans were not viable due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to utilize offered resources.

The court granted the society's motion, ordering extended care without parental access, but allowed access for the child's half-sister.