Janani Shanmuganathan

The Professional Conduct Committee alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by failing to cooperate with two investigations into complaints from former clients.

The Member did not attend the hearing.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member breached Rule 104.2 of the CPA Ontario Code of Professional Conduct by failing to respond to repeated communications from Standards Enforcement staff over several months.

The Committee ordered the Member to cooperate, pay a fine of $7,500, and pay costs of $2,800, failing which her membership would be suspended and ultimately revoked.

The Member was convicted of two counts of assault against a former mentee and direct report, arising from non-consensual touching at a fundraising event.

The Professional Conduct Committee alleged this conduct breached Rule 201.1 of the CPA Ontario Code of Professional Conduct.

The Discipline Committee found the allegations established and that the conduct constituted professional misconduct.

The Member was suspended for 9 months, permanently restricted from acting as a formal CPA Ontario mentor, fined $10,000, and ordered to pay costs of $5,700.

The Law Society Tribunal determined the penalty for a lawyer found to have engaged in professional misconduct by being wilfully blind to a fraud and money laundering scheme.

The lawyer argued for a suspension, citing powerful mitigating factors including difficult personal circumstances, the isolated nature of the transaction, strong community support, and six years of unblemished practice since the incident.

The Tribunal held that wilful blindness to fraud is tantamount to knowledge, triggering a presumptive penalty of revocation.

Finding that the mitigating factors did not explain why the misconduct occurred or amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to displace the presumption, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of the lawyer's licence and costs of $24,000.

The applicant applied for admission to membership with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario.

The Registrar referred the application to the Admission and Registration Committee after discovering the applicant had a criminal conviction for failing to provide a breath sample, which he had not disclosed on his application.

The panel considered the applicant's rehabilitative efforts, including ethics courses and counselling, and his genuine remorse.

The panel found that the applicant established on a balance of probabilities that he was of good character at the time of the hearing and ordered his admission to membership.

The appellant appealed his convictions and global sentence of eight years for sexual offences against three adolescent women.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting the testimony of each complainant as similar fact evidence across counts, specifically regarding the finding that accidental tainting had not occurred.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis, noting that the core allegations differed meaningfully and could not be the product of accidental tainting.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the eight-year global sentence was fit given the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victims.

This decision concerns a Crown appeal of a conditional sentence imposed for sexual assault.

The Crown argued that a traditional jail sentence was required, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and alleged errors in the sentencing judge’s application of section 718.04 of the Criminal Code and in considering the offender’s intellectual disability as a mitigating factor.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered all relevant principles, including the vulnerability of Indigenous women and the impact on the complainant, and that exceptional circumstances justified the conditional sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of domestic assault and breaches of orders, appealed the non-communication order prohibiting contact with his child, who was present during the assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the non-communication orders during incarceration and probation.

The court found the orders warranted due to the traumatic circumstances and prior family court orders, clarifying that any future contact with the child would be determined by family court or the Children's Aid Society based on the child's best interests.

The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences and possessing child pornography, receiving a 10-year prison sentence.

He appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies in a complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the factual threshold for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial judge properly characterized the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence as "peripheral" distinguishing the case from precedents where inconsistencies were deemed "profound."

The applicants challenged the federal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act in February 2022 to deal with the 'Freedom Convoy' protests and blockades.

The Federal Court found that the decision to issue the Proclamation Declaring a Public Order Emergency was unreasonable and ultra vires because the situation did not meet the statutory threshold of a 'national emergency' that could not be dealt with under any other law of Canada, nor did it constitute 'threats to the security of Canada' as defined in the CSIS Act.

The Court also held that the Emergency Measures Regulations infringed freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and the Emergency Economic Measures Order infringed the right against unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter, and neither infringement was justified under s. 1.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Proclamation Declaring a Public Order Emergency and associated regulations and orders made under the Emergencies Act.

The respondent moved to strike the application on grounds of mootness and lack of standing.

The Federal Court denied the motion to strike, granting the applicant public interest standing and exercising its discretion to hear the moot case.

The Court held that the decision to issue the Proclamation and associated measures was unreasonable and ultra vires the Emergencies Act.

The Court further declared that the Regulations infringed section 2(b) of the Charter and the Order infringed section 8 of the Charter, neither being justified under section 1.

The appellant, a young person, appealed convictions for sexual assault and uttering death threats, arguing the trial judge's reasons were insufficient due to a failure to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and a potential motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review as they failed to grapple with critical credibility issues.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, Aayush Choudhary, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of other sexual activity under s. 276 of the Criminal Code, failing to resolve material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, and misapprehending material evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision that the "kitchen incident" sexual activity was distinct from the charged offence and properly screened under s. 276.

The court found no material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and concluded that any misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge were inconsequential to the conviction, as the complainant had verbally communicated non-consent.

The appellant, Vykunthan Kanthavel, appealed his convictions for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, possession of a weapon, and aggravated assault, and his three-year imprisonment sentence.

The appeal raised three grounds: improper reliance on prior statements in credibility assessment, impermissible frame-by-frame analysis of evidence, and failure to apply the principle of restraint in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings, no impermissible analysis of video evidence given the judge's self-caution, and no error in sentencing as the principle of restraint was considered.

Leave to admit fresh evidence regarding the appellant's fatherly responsibilities was denied as it would not have affected the outcome.

The Applicants brought a motion under Rule 312 to file an additional affidavit introducing evidence from the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) into their applications for judicial review of the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the evidence was not before the decision-maker and admitting it would conflict with the POEC's process.

The Court granted the motion, finding the selected evidence regarding the Invocation Memorandum, policing plans, and threat assessments was admissible under exceptions to the general rule on judicial review records, as it provided necessary background and highlighted an absence of evidence before Cabinet.

The Court concluded the evidence was relevant and its admission served the interests of justice.

The appellant, Mohsin Mirza, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had found the sexual encounter non-consensual.

The appeal raised three issues: errors in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability, improper reliance on stereotypes in treating the appellant's evidence, and applying an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arguments essentially amounted to a disagreement with the trial judge's factual findings and that no material misapprehension of evidence or reversible error in credibility assessment was demonstrated.

The appellant appealed his conviction for various drug and firearm offences and his nine-year global sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the validity of a search warrant under section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds, particularly regarding the inclusion of facts from prior withdrawn or stayed charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the ITO, based on the totality of evidence and corroborative facts, justified the warrant.

The sentence appeal argued the nine-year global sentence was excessive, but the Court found the trial judge's sentencing discretion was reasonable.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, Dylan Hird, appealed his conviction for various offences related to the trafficking and sexual assault of a 15-year-old complainant.

The appeal focused on two grounds: the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding identification evidence and the handling of the police's failure to conduct a photo line-up.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions on identification, which adequately cautioned the jury on eyewitness testimony frailties and the need to prove the appellant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's management of the photo line-up issue, concluding that the approach taken was fair to both the Crown and the defence.

The appellant, Jeffrey Dodman, sought leave to appeal his 12-month custodial sentence for robbery and use of an imitation firearm.

The appeal focused on the calculation of "Downes credits" for pre-trial bail conditions, the appropriateness of a conditional sentence, the impact of post-sentencing events (including COVID-19 risks), and the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for imitation firearm use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's calculation of Downes credits was a reasonable exercise of discretion, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the seriousness of the crime, and post-sentencing events did not warrant interference.

The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum or delay the decision pending legislative changes, as the imposed sentence was deemed fit regardless.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of aggravated assault and firearms offences, arguing the trial judge misapprehended surveillance video evidence, failed to assess evidence holistically, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of the circumstantial evidence, and that the reasons were sufficient.

The court reiterated that Crown appeals from acquittals are limited to questions of law alone and cannot challenge the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellant, a former grade seven teacher, appealed his convictions and sentence for committing indecent acts and sexual invitation involving a 12-year-old student.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, failing to address a motive to fabricate, and misapplying the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the two years less a day sentence was fit and the trial judge properly considered the appellant's mental health.