James Gifford Foy

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to take preventive measures regarding the off-site discharge of contaminated stormwater from a brownfield property.

The Appellants argued that the Director lacked jurisdiction because there was no evidence of an actual adverse effect or actual impairment of water quality.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act permit preventive measures orders where there is a potential for adverse effects or impairment.

The Tribunal found the site to be highly contaminated, with stormwater exceeding aquatic life guideline values for contaminants like hexavalent chromium by several orders of magnitude, and confirmed the Director's Order in its entirety.

The appellant, Sandra Forcier, appealed her convictions for sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s credibility findings or conclusions.

The court noted the assistance of amicus curiae due to the appellant’s brain injury and confirmed that the trial judge’s reasons were entitled to deference.

The applicants, a reporter and a newspaper, sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision that upheld the refusal to disclose the names and badge numbers of police officers subject to misconduct complaints.

The applicants argued the IPC Adjudicator failed to consider their freedom of expression rights under section 2(b) of the Charter when applying the public interest override in section 23 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the Adjudicator erred by dismissing the Charter argument solely because a formal notice of constitutional question was not filed.

The application for judicial review was granted, the IPC decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of $99,210 in Canadian currency seized at Fallsview Casino, alleging it was the proceeds of unlawful activity, specifically money laundering.

The respondent, Branavan Kanapathipillai, claimed the funds were from legitimate gambling and a third mortgage.

The court reviewed expert evidence, financial tracing, and the respondent’s explanations, ultimately finding the Attorney General met the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities.

The court ordered the funds forfeited, finding the respondent’s explanations unconvincing and the circumstances highly suspicious.

The appellant, Nicholas Necan, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, having previously pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The appeal raised four grounds concerning the trial judge's jury charge: inadequate anti-bias instruction (specifically regarding the appellant's Indigenous identity and the 'firewater myth'), confusing instructions on intoxication, failure to provide an after-the-fact conduct instruction, and failure to provide a propensity reasoning instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury charge, while not perfect, adequately equipped the jury to judge the case, and that no reversible errors occurred regarding the challenged instructions.

The Member, a teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct relating to the possession of child pornography on his cell phone and SD card.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct, including engaging in a prohibited act involving child pornography, disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, and conduct unbecoming a member.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, the Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the Member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and a written reprimand.

The accused, Daniel Gendron, was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that Gendron had sexual intercourse with the complainant, S.M., while she was incapacitated and unable to consent, possibly due to being drugged.

The court found S.M.'s testimony to be unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding the timing of text messages and her belief in her friend's psychic abilities.

Due to the lack of corroboration for the critical aspects of S.M.'s testimony, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that S.M. was unconscious or incapable of consenting, or that she had withdrawn her consent.

The charge was dismissed.

The member was previously found to have engaged in professional misconduct involving child pornography.

At the penalty hearing, the Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty.

Pursuant to the mandatory penalty provisions in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, the Committee ordered that the member be reprimanded and directed the Registrar to immediately revoke the member's certificate of qualification and registration.

The appellant was convicted of sexual exploitation and uttering death threats following a judge-alone trial.

He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by relying on an ungrounded "common-sense" assumption to reject his evidence and by reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were plausible and grounded in the evidence, and that the burden of proof was not reversed.

The court emphasized the high deference given to trial judges' credibility findings and clarified the application of the rule against ungrounded common-sense assumptions.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion seeking the exclusion of evidence (drugs and firearms) seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, alleging violations of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient evidence to ground a reasonable belief for the search, and that police violated his right to counsel by delaying access, failing to hold off on questioning, and delaying notification of additional charges.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the ITO contained compelling, credible, and corroborated information from confidential informants.

The court also found no section 10(b) breaches, concluding that the delay in accessing counsel was reasonable to ensure privacy, the questioning was justified by officer safety, and the delay in notifying the applicant of new charges did not impact his Charter-protected interests.

The appellant appealed his conviction under s. 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code for agreeing by telecommunication to commit sexual interference with a person believed to be under 16.

The appeal raised two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in finding an agreement by failing to consider inconsistent inferences (actus reus), and whether the mens rea for the offence requires an intent to actually carry out the underlying sexual offence, beyond the intent to enter into the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding of a sufficiently detailed agreement and clarifying that the mens rea only requires the intent to enter into the agreement, aligning the offence with other inchoate child protection provisions.

This is an appeal from a conviction for sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to address inadvertent tainting of the complainant's evidence and by making a finding of no motive to fabricate without evidentiary foundation, thereby reversing the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the inadvertent tainting argument given the nature of the allegations, and interpreting the trial judge's finding of "no motive to fabricate" as a rejection of the defence's assertion of animus, rather than an improper bolstering of credibility or reversal of the burden of proof.

Timothy Knight was charged with three counts of domestic assault.

The complainant, Ms. Rigato, was the sole witness.

The defence argued Ms. Rigato had a motive to fabricate due to an impending custody dispute.

The court found Ms. Rigato to be a truthful and thoughtful witness, accepting her uncontradicted evidence that she reported the assaults because they occurred, not to gain a family law advantage.

While minor inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony did not undermine her credibility, the court had a reasonable doubt regarding the first alleged assault (a push in bed) due to its context.

Knight was found not guilty of the first assault but guilty of the second and third assaults.

The appellant, Dwayne Campbell, appealed his convictions for robbery, forcible confinement, and use of an imitation firearm, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was breached.

The total delay was 28 months and 26 days, below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the application judge erred in assessing the appellant's "meaningful steps to expedite" the case did not "markedly" exceed the reasonable time requirements, largely due to the co-accused's actions and the Crown's reasonable decision not to sever the trials.

In a prosecution for sexual assault and sexual interference, the court ruled on several pre-trial applications.

The court permitted a challenge for cause based on pre-trial publicity.

The court excluded proposed evidence from a former bandmate regarding a masturbation video and a statement about degradation, finding the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The court also excluded similar fact evidence from a prior sexual partner regarding sexual urination.

Finally, the court permitted the Crown to call an expert witness to testify about the basic neurobiology of trauma to dispel myths and stereotypes, but restricted the expert from applying that science specifically to the context of sexual assault.

A police officer, Remo Romano, appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and his eight-month custodial sentence.

The conviction arose from a fatal collision where he struck and killed a pedestrian while driving at excessive speed during undercover surveillance.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly focused the jury on the consequences of his driving rather than the manner of driving, and failed to adequately explain the "marked departure" standard for mens rea.

He also sought a reduction in sentence or a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the jury charge was appropriate and the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, even considering the newfound availability of conditional sentences for this offence.

The Crown brought an application for a sealing order and to hold part of the proceedings in camera regarding charges under the Security of Information Act.

The charges stemmed from intercepted telephone calls to a foreign embassy.

The Crown sought to prevent public disclosure of a redacted CSIS affidavit and warrant, arguing it would injure Canada's international relations.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found that the orders were necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice and that the salutary effects outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The application was granted.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after it invited the trial judge to acquit the accused to avoid non-compliance with a disclosure order.

The trial judge had ruled that the Drug Recognition Expert's rolling log was relevant and subject to disclosure under Stinchcombe, but that section 320.36(2) of the Criminal Code prohibited its disclosure, rendering the section unconstitutional.

On appeal, the Superior Court upheld the finding that rolling logs are relevant and must be disclosed.

However, the court found that the trial judge erred in interpreting the Criminal Code; the amended provisions do not prohibit the disclosure of rolling logs in criminal proceedings.

As the rolling logs were still required to be disclosed, the appeal was dismissed.

This appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained following an unlawful arrest and unreasonable search, and the reasonableness of the conviction for drug and firearm offences.

Police, after a search warrant was denied, arrested the accused as a suspected drug buyer.

A search incident to arrest yielded drugs and a firearm.

The trial judge found Charter breaches (ss. 8 and 9) but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding police conduct negligent but not egregious.

The accused was convicted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, finding sufficient grounds for investigative detention, no improper disregard of the justice of the peace's decision, and that negligent conduct does not automatically lead to exclusion.

The Court also found the conviction reasonable based on circumstantial evidence of the accused's knowledge of the contraband.

The appellant appealed his conviction for firearms and narcotics offences, arguing that police surveillance violated his s. 8 Charter rights, the initial search warrant was invalid due to misrepresentations, and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, or that the police conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police surveillance from a distance on neighbouring property did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

While acknowledging minor s. 8 breaches related to delayed reporting and a defective warrant, the court upheld the trial judge's decision not to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and found no abuse of process, noting the police trespass was not serious and based on erroneous legal advice.