J. Gibson

The appellant brought a motion to preemptively restrict a lay witness, the president of the responding neighbourhood association, from giving opinion evidence regarding a severance and minor variance application.

The appellant argued that since their own witnesses were qualified experts, the lay witness should be limited to factual evidence unless she met the test in R v Graat.

The tribunal dismissed the motion as premature, noting that the distinction between fact and opinion can be argued in closing submissions, and emphasized that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the tribunal broad discretion to admit evidence that might be inadmissible in a court.

The accused pleaded guilty to failing to provide the necessities of life to his infant daughter, causing her bodily harm through severe malnutrition.

The accused, who was not the primary caregiver, failed to seek medical attention for months despite noticing the child's physical deterioration.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the child's vulnerability and the prolonged neglect against mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, eventual call for medical help, and collateral employment consequences.

The court rejected a conditional discharge and imposed an 8-month conditional sentence followed by 18 months of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to failing to provide the necessities of life to her young child, causing severe malnutrition and bodily harm.

The court considered the accused's major depressive disorder at the time of the offence as a significant mitigating factor that reduced her moral culpability.

Balancing the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence for child abuse with the accused's rehabilitation and mental health, the court imposed a 10-month conditional sentence followed by two years of probation.

The Ontario Review Board recommended an inquiry to determine if criminal proceedings against Ms. McDonald, who was found unfit to stand trial for arson, should be stayed.

Following a joint recommendation from counsel and an assessment confirming permanent unfitness and low public threat, the court ordered a stay of proceedings.

The decision considered the seriousness of the offence, the salutary effects of the stay (focus on treatment, judicial resource savings), and public confidence in the administration of justice, concluding that reasonable, well-informed persons would not expect indefinite proceedings for a permanently unfit individual.

The Crown sought an indeterminate sentence for the respondent's breach of a Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) imposed following a dangerous offender designation.

The respondent opposed the application and sought a time-served sentence.

The court rejected the Crown's application for an indeterminate sentence, finding that the respondent's risk to public safety could be managed in the community with appropriate conditions and treatment engagement.

However, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 34 months, accounting for the serious nature of the breach, the respondent's pattern of non-compliance, and his recent positive steps toward rehabilitation.

The applicant, charged with child pornography offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable trial delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was over 39 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and deducted 5 months and 21 days of defence delay, as well as a 10-day discrete event, resulting in a net delay of 33 months and 5 days, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments that the case was particularly complex or that transitional exceptional circumstances justified the delay.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The applicant brought a Charter section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay in a child pornography case.

The applicant was arrested on May 14, 2015, with trial scheduled to conclude on April 13, 2017—approximately 23 months later, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application for procedural non-compliance.

The court dismissed the Crown's motion and granted the applicant's section 11(b) application, finding that the delay was presumptively unreasonable and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption.

The court found that the Crown's failure to disclose critical forensic evidence until the eve of the preliminary inquiry constituted a breach of disclosure obligations that could not be excused as an exceptional circumstance.

A stay of proceedings was ordered.

The accused was charged with two counts of making child pornography and possession of child pornography.

The Crown established that the accused created composite images by attaching the face of a young girl (cut from a Sears catalogue) to altered images of adult bodies, manipulating the images through photocopying and hand-drawing to emphasize child-like features including genitalia and breasts.

The accused claimed the images served scientific and educational purposes related to theories about human sexuality and reproduction.

The court rejected the accused's defences of scientific purpose and public good, finding that the images had child sexual abuse material as their dominant characteristic and were created for sexual purpose.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of criminal harassment contrary to section 264 of the Criminal Code for non-consensually distributing intimate images of the complainant on a pornographic website.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court found the offence to be serious given the prevalence of non-consensual sexting, the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's degree of responsibility.

However, the court considered the accused's exemplary character, rehabilitation efforts, remorse, guilty plea, and the collateral consequences already suffered.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, no contact with the complainant, and restrictions on possessing intimate images.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child who alleged that the accused touched her vaginal area over and under her pyjamas while reading bedtime stories over an extended period when she was between seven and eight years old.

The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s delayed disclosure and considered the principles in W.(D.) and jurisprudence on evaluating child witnesses.

While the complainant’s testimony appeared sincere, the court identified internal inconsistencies, reliability concerns regarding certain details, and evidence suggesting potential motive related to family dynamics and conflict between the complainant and the accused.

Considering the totality of the evidence, including the accused’s testimony and the surrounding circumstances, the court found that the accused’s denial could reasonably be true.

The Crown therefore failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

In bankruptcy proceedings involving the debtor, the court addressed two issues: post‑judgment interest on a foreign judgment and the proposed terms of a Mareva injunction in aid of execution.

The parties agreed that simple interest on the foreign judgment would run from April 20, 1998 to September 28, 1998 at 10% per annum, which the court ordered.

The moving party sought a broad Mareva injunction restricting the debtor’s dealings with assets and requiring extensive disclosure.

Given emerging concerns about the adequacy of disclosure by the moving party in earlier proceedings and the fact that the trial judge would be hearing additional evidence on sanctions, the court declined to rule on the Mareva relief and left the issue to the trial judge.

Following extensive trial reasons in complex bankruptcy and fraud proceedings, the court issued a second case conference memorandum addressing outstanding procedural and remedial issues.

The court directed that issues concerning damages recoverable by a creditor, tracing relief, and costs orders against certain defendants be scheduled before the associate chief justice who presided over related contempt proceedings.

The memorandum also clarified that a previously ordered constructive trust over the bankrupt’s property should be incorporated into the final order without further submissions.

The court established a timetable for written submissions on post‑judgment interest relating to an earlier judgment and on the terms of a Mareva injunction in aid of execution.

The decision functioned primarily as case management to finalize remaining issues in the litigation.

The case management judge issued directions regarding the scheduling and sequencing of outstanding issues in a complex bankruptcy proceeding.

The court ordered written submissions for issues concerning the disclosure of the Trustee's report and the release of funds, while deferring other matters, including examinations and discharge hearings, until the trial judge releases supplementary reasons and determines contempt sentencing.

The offender pleaded guilty to four child pornography-related offences and two breaches of probation conditions.

He had previously been convicted of possession of child pornography in 2010 and sentenced to 4.5 months custody plus three years probation with strict conditions prohibiting computer use without monitoring software.

Within weeks of release, he resumed accessing and distributing child pornography through the internet, using encryption software and internet cafes to evade detection.

Upon arrest, police seized approximately 61,000 child pornography images and hundreds of videos, predominantly depicting prepubescent boys.

The court imposed a 36-month effective sentence (17 months prospective custody following 19 months pre-trial detention credit) followed by three years probation with strict conditions including mandatory treatment, computer restrictions, and sex offender registration for life.