J. Falconer

The plaintiffs brought an action against the investigating coroner, supervising coroners, and Ontario following the death of a four-year-old child in a remote First Nation community.

The plaintiffs alleged misfeasance in public office, negligent supervision, breach of s. 15 of the Charter, and breach of the honour of the Crown regarding the coroner's investigation.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court struck all claims without leave to amend, finding that the coroners' actions fell within their statutory discretion, statutory immunity barred the negligence claims, no private law duty of care was owed, and the Charter and honour of the Crown claims had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant media organization sought judicial review of a decision to hold an in camera hearing for an extension of time application under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act regarding police misconduct allegations.

The applicant argued the decision-maker erred by failing to apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test for open court proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Dagenais/Mentuck test does not apply to administrative or procedural functions under the Police Services Act, which contains its own statutory framework for determining when hearings may be closed to the public.

Following the dismissal of their appeals from decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal regarding wind farm approvals, the appellant landowners argued they should not pay costs because the litigation was in the public interest.

The Divisional Court held that while the appeals were not public interest litigation that would merit no costs, they did contain a strong public interest component regarding the constitutionality of the legislative regime.

Taking this into account, along with the lack of particularity in the respondents' bills of costs and the lower scale of costs typically awarded on appeals to the Divisional Court, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents totaling $67,000.

The appellants, residents living near three proposed wind turbine farms, appealed decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) that confirmed the Director's issuance of Renewable Energy Approvals (REAs) for the projects.

The appellants argued that the statutory test requiring them to prove the projects would cause 'serious harm to human health' violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the statutory test aligned with the jurisprudential threshold for section 7 claims and did not depart from the consensus scientific view on wind turbines.

The Court also upheld the ERT's treatment of lay witness evidence, its finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Director's REA issuance process for Charter compliance, and its discretionary decisions denying adjournments.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from a fatal stabbing during a confrontation in a public park, the court determined the appropriate sentence.

The accused, aged eighteen at the time and with no prior criminal record, stabbed the victim once in the chest after being slapped during a confrontation that followed earlier intimidation involving a knife.

The court identified significant aggravating factors including carrying a large knife in public while intoxicated, brandishing it earlier to intimidate others, failing to assist the victim, fleeing the scene, and disposing of the weapon.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, supportive background, and low risk of reoffending.

Applying the recognized sentencing range for aggravated manslaughter and balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a custodial sentence within the lower end of the established range.

During a second degree murder jury trial, the defence applied for an inquiry under s. 644 of the Criminal Code to determine whether a juror should be discharged due to alleged conduct suggesting partiality, including turning away during the accused’s testimony and making gestures during closing submissions.

The court held that the alleged behaviour did not meet the high threshold required to justify an inquiry into a juror’s fitness.

Juror conduct must raise a serious issue regarding the ability to perform duties before the court interferes with jury secrecy.

The court emphasized that jurors may form provisional views during trial provided they remain open to deliberation.

The application for an inquiry and the related request for a mistrial were dismissed.