J. Kevin Wright

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, mischief, and robbery.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had made positive progress in transitional housing, maintaining sobriety and medication compliance.

However, given his history of rapid relapse and decompensation, the Board found he continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was premature and ordered the continuation of a detention disposition with privileges to ensure public safety and monitor his transition into the community.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and the Attorney-General jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's schizophrenia symptoms had resolved with treatment, she maintained abstinence from alcohol, and she demonstrated insight and remorse.

The Board found the accused no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The accused faced multiple Criminal Code and Provincial Offences Act charges arising from an incident during the "Rolling Thunder" event in Ottawa.

Charges included dangerous operation of a conveyance, flight from police, failing to stop after an accident, resisting arrest, refusing a breath demand, and breaching release conditions.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous operation, flight from police, resisting arrest, refusing a breath demand, and breaching a geographical release condition.

The accused was found not guilty of failing to stop after an accident and breaching a release condition related to participating in "Freedom Convoy" events, as the court found "Rolling Thunder" to be a distinct event.

Provincial offence charges for driving without an ignition interlock device and without insurance were dismissed, while charges for failing to obey police directions and having open liquor in a vehicle resulted in convictions.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of impaired driving (over 80 mg) after the trial judge excluded breathalyzer evidence due to a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

The trial judge found a breach because the breathalyzer technician failed to follow up on the respondent's "equivocal" non-verbal response (shrug and nod) when asked if he was satisfied with duty counsel.

The appeal court found the trial judge erred in law and fact, holding that an equivocal response, especially when the respondent himself testified he intended to convey satisfaction, does not constitute an "objectively observable indicator" requiring further police inquiry under s. 10(b).

Consequently, the s. 24(2) Charter exclusion of evidence was also found to be in error as the breach did not seriously impact the respondent's Charter-protected interests.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a verdict of guilty entered.

This is a sentencing decision for Chandramattie Dave and Ravindra Dave, who pleaded guilty to trading in securities while prohibited by an Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) order, contrary to s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act.

Both defendants were subject to market bans.

The OSC sought a fine and probation, while the defendants sought a suspended sentence and probation.

The court considered the defendants' impecunious state, poor health, diminished moral blameworthiness due to reliance on incorrect legal advice, lack of investor loss, and guilty pleas.

Applying regulatory sentencing principles, the court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation for each defendant, including the forfeiture of $2,250 to the OSC, but declined to impose a fine due to the defendants' inability to pay.

The applicant, York Condominium Corporation No. 221, brought an application against unit owners Julian and Christine Mazur to compel compliance with a Toronto Fire Department inspection order regarding combustible materials, restrain dumping garbage in common elements, and for full indemnity legal costs.

The unit was deemed a fire hazard.

The respondents sought an adjournment, which was denied, and consented to the substantive compliance orders but resisted the costs claim.

The court found the unit's condition a serious hazard, noting the Corporation's obligation to ensure compliance.

The court granted the compliance orders and awarded the Condominium Corporation full indemnity costs.

The appellants brought a class action against defendant manufacturers and suppliers alleging they conspired to fix the price of lithium-ion batteries sold in Canada between January 2000 and December 2011.

The conspiracy allegedly impacted all purchasers, including "umbrella purchasers" whose batteries originated from non-defendants, as the cartel's price increases caused non-conspirators to also raise prices.

The certification judge certified only a statutory claim under the Competition Act for non-umbrella purchasers.

The Divisional Court certified an unlawful means conspiracy claim but excluded umbrella purchasers, citing indeterminate liability concerns.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the principle of indeterminate liability does not apply to either the statutory claim or the unlawful means conspiracy claim, and that umbrella purchasers should be included in the class with a subclass created for non-umbrella purchasers regarding aggregate damages quantification.

This decision concerns the judicial approval of three settlements in ongoing auto-parts price-fixing class actions.

The plaintiffs moved for approval of settlements with Hitachi (CDN$6,667,084), Autoliv (US$3.2 million), and Leoni (CDN$250,000), along with substantial cooperation from the defendants.

The court also considered certification for settlement purposes for the Occupant Safety Systems action against Autoliv and the Automotive Wire Harness Systems action against Leoni.

The court approved all settlements, finding them within a zone of reasonableness based on U.S. settlements, Canadian sales, and cooperation provided.

Additionally, class counsel's legal fees (25% of allocated settlement amounts) and honoraria for representative plaintiffs were approved, emphasizing the importance of robust contingency fee arrangements for access to justice.

The Director of Investigation and Research applied for an order requiring Southam to divest itself of several community newspapers, alleging the acquisitions substantially lessened competition in the print advertising market.

The Competition Tribunal found a substantial lessening of competition only in the real estate print advertising market on the North Shore and ordered divestment of either the North Shore News or the Real Estate Weekly.

The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal's market definition on the merits but upheld the remedy.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal on the merits, establishing that the Tribunal's decisions on questions of mixed law and fact are subject to a standard of reasonableness simpliciter due to its economic expertise, and restored the Tribunal's original decision.

The appeal on the remedy was dismissed.