J. Lefebvre

The accused, a 21-year-old first offender, was found guilty of sexual assault against a 15-year-old victim whom he met online.

The Crown sought 24 to 30 months in custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate despite the accused's mitigating circumstances, including a difficult upbringing and lack of a criminal record.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months in custody followed by 18 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

At a case conference for an appeal from the Consent and Capacity Board, the self-represented appellant indicated he wished to argue the appeal himself.

The respondent doctor had also scheduled a motion for permission to treat the appellant against his will.

The court directed Legal Aid Ontario to investigate the appellant's status and appointed amicus curiae for the upcoming motion and appeal pursuant to Rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, a rap artist, sued a radio host and broadcaster for copyright infringement, theft, and negligence after they played an 18-second clip of his song during an interview.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants had complied with the Copyright Act by paying the required SOCAN royalties, precluding any claim for infringement or theft.

The court also dismissed the negligence claim for lack of evidence of damages and found that, in any event, the parties had previously reached a binding settlement agreement via email.

A media organization applied under s. 487.0193 of the Criminal Code to revoke or vary a production order requiring it to produce unedited recordings of interviews with an accused person broadcast by television and radio.

The applicant argued that compliance was unreasonable and that the court should review the validity of the production order, particularly considering the media’s role under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court held that the statutory review under s. 487.0193 concerns whether compliance with the order is unreasonable, not whether the issuing justice properly granted the order, which remains the domain of certiorari review.

Applying the principles governing production orders and the special considerations for media searches articulated in CBC v. Lessard, the court found the order reasonable.

The requested material was already prepared and publicly broadcast, making compliance neither onerous nor intrusive on press freedom.

Following guilty pleas to sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of a prohibition order, the Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had a history of sexual offences against children, including prior convictions and repeated conduct demonstrating a pattern of sexual violence against minors.

Expert psychiatric evidence diagnosed pedophilia and antisocial personality traits, with actuarial assessments indicating a moderate‑high to high risk of sexual recidivism.

The court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by long‑term supervision would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed after the offender was declared a dangerous offender.

A physician plaintiff sued another physician and related institutions for negligence and false imprisonment after being involuntarily detained for psychiatric assessment under a Form 1 pursuant to the Mental Health Act.

The court held that the defendant physician breached the standard of care by failing to conduct a proper personal examination and by relying on unreliable third‑party information before completing the Form 1.

The improper completion of the Form 1 meant the resulting detention was unauthorized and constituted false imprisonment.

The plaintiff established compensable psychiatric injury and economic loss caused by the negligent and unlawful detention.

The court awarded general damages and reduced income loss but denied punitive damages and prevented double recovery between the negligence and false imprisonment claims.