J.F. Adamson

This criminal trial concerned a charge of failing to provide the necessaries of life, contrary to s. 215 of the Criminal Code, against an accused whose girlfriend died from diabetic ketoacidosis.

The court found that the deceased was under the accused's charge and that his failure to summon medical aid, particularly by taking a sleeping pill that rendered him insensible, constituted a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable and prudent person.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was objectively foreseeable to a reasonable person, lacking specific medical knowledge of diabetes, that the deceased's symptoms would lead to death or permanent injury within the timeframe affected by the accused's inaction.

The accused was acquitted.

At a focus hearing for a preliminary inquiry involving charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, the court determined whether the defence could call five proposed witnesses, including family members and disclosure witnesses.

The Crown argued that such witnesses were only relevant to trial, not to the preliminary inquiry's purpose of determining whether there was sufficient evidence for committal.

The defence argued that the discovery function of preliminary inquiries remained valid and that witnesses relevant to that function could be called under section 541(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the discovery function of preliminary inquiries continues to exist and that the defence may call witnesses to further that function within reasonable bounds.

The Ministry of Labour appealed a sentence imposed on Ontario Power Generation following a guilty plea to one count under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Crown sought to challenge an interlocutory Charter ruling made at trial that had excluded evidence of worker injury as an aggravating factor on sentence.

The central issue was whether a Crown sentence appeal could be used to overturn an interlocutory ruling made during the conviction phase, particularly where the Crown had participated in the guilty plea.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown had a reasonable alternative available—refusing to participate in the plea and calling no evidence to preserve the right to appeal—and that allowing the appeal would create procedural unfairness and inconsistent verdicts.

This is a costs decision following a six-day family law trial concerning custody and parenting time of a seven-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought costs of $75,000 (or alternatively $61,249.74) against the applicant father.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issues of custody and parenting schedule, entitling her to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

However, the court reduced the award to reflect the father's successes on certain issues and the mother's own conduct deficiencies, including her failure to engage in meaningful settlement discussions and her service of non-severable settlement offers containing extraneous terms.

The father's conduct, while unreasonable and cost-generating, did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded costs of $37,901.40, payable by March 31, 2016, with post-judgment interest at 2% per annum.

The accused was charged with obstructing police and eight driving-related offences arising from a traffic stop on February 2, 2014.

The accused raised numerous pseudo-legal arguments based on a denial of state authority, claiming he was subject only to divine law.

The court dismissed these arguments by adopting the reasoning from Meads v. Meads regarding organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments (O.P.C.A.).

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, including obstructing police by driving away from the scene in an uninsured, unregistered vehicle despite lawful police direction to remain at the scene.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level over .08 after being observed driving erratically by a witness who called police.

A police officer attended the accused's residence and made observations of impairment including unsteadiness, glassy and watery eyes, slurred speech, and the odour of alcohol on the accused's breath.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the officer's observations on grounds of breaches of sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the observations admissible and convicted the accused on both charges.