J. Sanderson Graham

The plaintiffs, shareholders and creditors in Mobilicity, a wireless telecommunications company, sued the federal government for negligence and negligent misrepresentation arising from the 2008 AWS spectrum auction.

The plaintiffs alleged that Industry Canada represented that spectrum licences acquired at auction would be transferable to incumbent carriers after a five-year moratorium, and that they relied on this representation to invest approximately $250 million in equity and $95 million in debt to capitalize Mobilicity and bid for spectrum licences.

The plaintiffs further alleged that in 2013, the government unilaterally changed the transfer framework to prohibit transfers to incumbents, and in 2014-2015 interfered with Mobilicity's sales process through threats, media manipulation, and regulatory delay.

The court found the government liable for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, holding that it owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs based on specific representations made to induce investment, and that it breached that duty through the implementation of the 2013 Transfer Framework and subsequent interference in the sales process.

The court awarded damages based on a "but for" analysis, calculating what the plaintiffs would have earned in alternative investments had they not relied on the government's representations.

The defendant, Eldan Krcic, faced charges of theft, assault, and assault with a weapon arising from allegations of intimate partner violence.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, and photographic evidence of injuries.

The court assessed witness credibility and reliability, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

While the complainant's testimony had some credibility issues and the defendant's testimony was largely untruthful, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt due to residual doubts about the complainant's testimony and the unauthenticated nature of the photographic evidence.

All remaining charges were dismissed.

The defendant, Dwight Dube, was charged with impaired driving and over 80.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) due to excessive force during arrest and improper implementation of the right to counsel.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating section 7 of the Charter, but found no violation of sections 8, 9, or 10(b).

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the breath sample evidence and police observations of potential impairment, leading to an acquittal on both charges.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the defendant's conviction for two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, and one count of breach of recognizance.

The defendant attacked two victims with a knife in an unprovoked manner, causing serious injuries that could have been fatal.

The court found the defendant met the criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753(1)(a)(ii) based on a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to consequences.

Despite evidence that the defendant's schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorder were theoretically treatable, the court concluded his violent conduct was intractable due to his consistent failure to seek and follow psychiatric treatment, lack of insight into his illness, and resistance to treatment.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding that neither a determinate sentence nor a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

The accused were charged with numerous Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following a search of their basement dwelling and garage.

The charges arose from evidence obtained during a warrantless home inspection conducted by a child protection worker with police assistance, and a subsequent search warrant based on observations from that initial warrantless entry.

The court found that the warrantless home inspection violated the accused's Charter rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The worker lacked statutory authority to conduct a home inspection for investigative purposes, as the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act only authorized warrantless entries for the purpose of removing children in need of protection to a place of safety.

The court rejected the Crown's reliance on the ancillary powers doctrine, finding it does not extend to non-police officers.

The subsequent search warrant was invalid as it relied entirely on evidence obtained from the unlawful warrantless search.

All evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and both accused were acquitted on all charges.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance arising from violent attacks on two neighbours on October 10, 2016.

The Crown alleged the accused stabbed one victim multiple times in the head and neck/upper chest area with a knife.

The accused claimed the injuries were accidental and that he acted in self-defence against the other victim.

The court found that while the attack was vicious, unprovoked, and premeditated, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific intent to kill.

The court convicted on aggravated assault, weapons dangerous charges, and breach of recognizance, but acquitted on attempted murder and breach of probation.

A mid-trial ruling on a voluntariness voir dire concerning a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped statement made during police interrogation.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt due to oppressive circumstances, including prolonged handcuffing, deprivation of clean clothing, sleep deprivation, and the use of excessive force during evidence collection.

The court also found that the accused should have been re-cautioned prior to the interview given his state of mind and the circumstances.

The defendant was charged with one count of assault and one count of mischief under $5,000.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, as well as photographic evidence.

The central issues were whether the Crown proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, the credibility of the witnesses, and whether self-defence applied.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the defendant's account as implausible and inconsistent.

The court determined that the defendant unlawfully assaulted the complainant by grabbing her neck and subsequently damaged her cell phone.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of formic acid pest control products for honey bees, brought an action against the federal Crown alleging misfeasance in public office, negligent misrepresentation, injurious falsehood, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The claims arose from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's (PMRA) decisions to permit the continued use of unregistered 65% formic acid, grant emergency use registrations for competitor products, and require the plaintiff to register its products.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action.

The court found no evidence of deliberate or unlawful conduct by PMRA officials, no intent to harm the plaintiff, and no private law duty of care owed by the regulatory agency to the plaintiff.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a roadside stop and arrest.

The accused applied to exclude breath sample evidence on the grounds that the arresting officer failed to advise her of her right to counsel immediately upon arrest, in violation of s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

The court found the breach serious due to systemic failures by the Peel Regional Police to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Suberu, which established that "without delay" means "immediately." Despite the reliability of the evidence and the accused's decision not to contact counsel, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.

The charge was dismissed.

This motion arose from an application by the Attorney General of Canada seeking the return of confidential taxpayer information inadvertently sent to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and an order preventing its future use.

The CBC, as respondent in the main application, brought a motion to compel the production of various documents from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that were refused during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The Master dismissed the CBC's motion, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the issues on the application, nor to the deponent's credibility, and that the requests constituted a 'fishing expedition'.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his father.

The accused admitted to the assault but claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused's father had thrown a roast and a beer bottle at the accused, and then advanced toward him.

The accused responded by forcing his father to the ground and restraining him.

The court accepted the accused's evidence over the complainant's, finding the complainant's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding the cause of the argument, understatement of alcohol consumption, and poor recollection of events.

The court found that the accused's response was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the charge.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault involving minors.

The offences occurred over an extended period and involved multiple victims who were under the offender's authority as a coach and mentor.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 10 months for one count, 8 months as a conditional sentence for another count, and 5 months for the third count, all to be served consecutively.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the breach of trust, grooming behaviour, and vulnerability of the victims.

The offender was also subject to DNA sampling, sex offender registration for 20 years, a 2-year probation order with conditions including sex offender counselling, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to strike or stay an amended statement of claim.

The underlying action alleged that government representations induced the plaintiffs to invest in a telecommunications company and that subsequent government conduct destroyed the value of the investment, causing significant losses.

The moving party argued the claim was derivative in nature and that several pleaded causes of action disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the stringent test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b) was not met because there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision.

Although the pleadings raised novel and important legal issues, they were not plainly and obviously doomed to fail and should proceed on a full evidentiary record.

RCMP members challenged federal wage restraint measures, arguing that rollback of agreed wage increases without prior consultation violated freedom of association under s. 2(d) of the Charter.

The majority held the Expenditure Restraint Act did not substantially interfere with the existing consultation process and dismissed the appeal, while a dissent found unconstitutional unilateral interference.

After dismissal of a constitutional application for lack of standing and non‑justiciability, the respondent sought costs of the proceeding.

The court considered the absence of Rule 49 offers and the respondent’s partial indemnity entitlement as the successful party.

The respondent incurred over $38,000 in legal costs and disbursements but sought recovery of $10,000.

The court found the request reasonable given the constitutional issues raised and the applicant’s litigation conduct, including voluminous irrelevant materials and late filings.

Costs of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded against the applicant.

The applicant sought declarations that the Canada Act 1982 prevents Canada from consenting to United Kingdom legislation altering the rules of succession to the Crown and that provisions barring Catholics or those married to Catholics from ascending to the Crown are of no force or effect.

The court addressed preliminary issues of justiciability and standing.

Relying on prior authority, the court held that the rules of royal succession form part of the constitutional structure of Canada as a constitutional monarchy and are not subject to Charter scrutiny.

The court further held that the applicant lacked standing because he had no personal stake and raised only a hypothetical concern.

The application was therefore dismissed.