John Semenoff

The Court held that under s. 16(3) of the Canada Evidence Act, an adult witness with mental disabilities is competent if they can communicate evidence and promise to tell the truth.

Requiring abstract understanding of truth-telling obligations was rejected.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The Court noted it did not necessarily agree that the discoverability principle applied to the limitation period in question, but did not need to decide the issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Kingston operated a municipal dump site from which toxic leachate migrated into the Cataraqui River.

The Crown and a private citizen laid charges under s. 36(3) of the Fisheries Act.

The trial judge convicted the City and its Director of Environmental Services, but the summary conviction appeal judge ordered a new trial, applying the test from R. v. Inco Ltd. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions, holding that the Inco test applies to the Ontario Water Resources Act, not the Fisheries Act.

Under the Fisheries Act, the Crown need only prove that the substance added to the water is deleterious, not that the receiving water itself was rendered deleterious.

The Crown applied for special leave to appeal a decision upholding a non-suit in a prosecution against Petro Canada.

The Crown argued that the Justice of the Peace erred in refusing to admit a letter and its enclosures into evidence.

The Court of Appeal denied special leave, noting that while the Justice of the Peace may have erred in excluding the evidence, the case did not warrant special leave.

The Crown appealed a decision regarding charges against the respondent under the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Following further submissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that errors of law relating to the due diligence defence applied equally to both charges.

Pursuant to s. 125 of the Provincial Offences Act, the Court ordered that the OWRA charge be retried together with the EPA charge.

The Crown appealed an acquittal of the respondent on a charge of discharging a contaminant under the Environmental Protection Act following a gasoline spill from a pipe failure.

The trial judge convicted the respondent, holding that the due diligence defence was unavailable because the precise cause of the pipe failure was unknown.

The appeal judge overturned the conviction, finding the defence was made out unless it was patently obvious that reasonable care was not met.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that while a defendant need not prove the precise cause of an event to raise a due diligence defence, the appeal judge erred in law by shifting the onus of disproving due diligence to the Crown.