James Douglas Grenkie

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks requiring them to stop burning waste wood, remove waste materials, and install monitoring wells on their property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that revised the original 11-item order into a 7-item order with updated compliance dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it to be a fair and equitable resolution that protects the natural environment while minimizing financial hardship to the appellants.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties indicated an openness to mediation and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order with minor modifications and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The appellants sought a stay of a Director's Order requiring them to cease burning waste materials, remove waste from their farm property, and install groundwater monitoring wells.

The Tribunal found that while it was not precluded by statute from granting a stay, the appellants failed to meet the three-part test for interlocutory relief under RJR-MacDonald.

Specifically, the appellants provided no evidence of irreparable harm that would result from complying with the order.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a telephone conference call to schedule a motion for a stay of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act, which prohibited the burning of waste wood materials at the site.

The Tribunal set dates for the stay motion, established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials, and scheduled a 5-day hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of hazardous waste and the completion of a Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment.

Following a previous decision ordering the Director to amend the order, the parties disagreed on the compliance deadlines for the remaining work items.

The appellants requested an extension because their retained Qualified Person was occupied with emergency work at another property following a fire.

The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed-upon extended compliance dates of August 3, 2021, for the Action Plan and October 29, 2021, for the Final Report, and directed the Director to issue the amended order with these dates.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring a Phase One Environmental Site Assessment and other actions at a site in Brockville.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties consented to a stay of Items 1 to 15 of the Director's Order.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from issuing a stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the stay.

The Tribunal also set the schedule for the hearing and next steps.

The Court held that arson under s. 434 of the Criminal Code is a general intent offence, so self-induced intoxication short of automatism is unavailable as a defence.

The trial judge’s reliance on intoxication materially affected the acquittal, so the acquittal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

On competing interim motions in a parenting dispute involving an 11-month-old child, the court applied the best interests of the child as the governing consideration.

The father sought joint custody, a defined access schedule, child support terms, and financial disclosure; the mother sought dismissal of that motion, interim custody, and restrictions on access being exercised in Ottawa.

The court granted the mother interim custody and principal residence, ordered a staged access regime for the father that balanced breastfeeding and the need to foster a meaningful father-child relationship, fixed interim child support at $181 per month retroactive to September 1, 2014, and compelled disclosure from the mother.

Success was divided and no costs were awarded.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of arson.

The accused, while highly intoxicated, left a pan of oil on a stove, causing a fire that destroyed his ex-girlfriend's house.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding that arson was a specific intent offence in these circumstances and that the accused's intoxication raised a reasonable doubt about his intent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal.

The majority held that arson under s. 434 is an offence requiring subjective intent or recklessness, making it akin to a specific intent offence where evidence of intoxication is relevant.

Although the trial judge erred in treating the classification of the offence as a question of fact, the error did not affect the outcome.

On a family law motion for interim relief following separation, the court addressed interim child support and interim spousal support in the context of a shared custody arrangement.

The court declined to impute full-time income to the responding party at this stage and instead fixed her income based on current part‑time earnings.

The moving party’s income was set using a prior year’s earnings where current information was incomplete.

Interim support was ordered based on those incomes and the shared parenting schedule.

Additional requests regarding restrictions on a new partner’s presence, international travel with the children, appraisal procedures for the matrimonial home, and removal of the children from school were determined on an interim basis.

The appellant appealed his conviction for defrauding a financing company of approximately $90,000 using an altered invoice for non-existent forestry equipment.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the equipment did not exist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, and concluding the combination of the false invoice and non-existent equipment was sufficient to found a conviction for fraud.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four counts of fraud under $5,000 arising from his computer business, where he accepted cash from customers for computer systems that were never delivered.

He argued the findings of guilt were unreasonable because there was no evidence of the requisite mens rea for fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence capable of supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant took the money knowing he could not or would not produce the goods.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued confinement in a hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding an adequate evidentiary basis for the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk of dangerousness due to her mental illness, personality disorder, and history of medication non-compliance.

However, the Court noted a lack of evidence regarding community management and medication supervision, expressing hope that these issues would be explored at the next hearing.