Joseph C. Dart

The applicant, Kasheen Wilson, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained by police, alleging violations of his Section 8 (unreasonable search) and Section 10(b) (right to counsel) Charter rights.

The Crown conceded a breach of the Section 10(b) right due to a significant delay in facilitating access to counsel at the police station.

The court found the Section 10(b) breach to be moderate to serious but its impact on the accused's interests minimal, as no evidence was elicited during the delay and he eventually spoke to counsel.

Regarding the Section 8 claim concerning a strip search, the court found no breach, concluding that the search was conducted with reasonable grounds and minimal deviation from guidelines.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application to exclude evidence, finding that its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the serious nature of the charges (fentanyl trafficking, weapons) and the minimal impact of the Charter breaches on the accused's rights.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on an unliquidated claim against the defendant, her former spouse, for damages resulting from his physical and psychological abuse during their marriage.

The defendant was noted in default and did not participate in the litigation.

The court assessed general damages, aggravated damages, and damages for lost earning capacity, along with an OHIP subrogated claim and pre-judgment interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 for general damages, $25,000 for aggravated damages, and $15,000 for loss of earning capacity, noting the evolving understanding of intimate partner violence in assessing aggravated damages.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

In this personal injury action, the defendants sought production of the complete and unredacted file of the Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (FCS) concerning the plaintiffs from 2014 to present.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing it was a fishing expedition and that the utility of the records would be tangential.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the burden for production of such highly intrusive records is high, and the prejudicial effect of disclosure greatly outweighed any potential benefit to the defendants, especially given that the information sought was likely of tangential relevance.

The offender, Abu Mandal, was convicted of selling items intended for the production of a Schedule I substance (methamphetamine) contrary to s. 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a fine and probation or a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the offence and the harm caused by methamphetamine, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of criminal record, advanced age (77), and low risk of reoffending.

The court found that a period of incarceration was warranted but deemed the Crown's proposed sentence excessive given the offender's age and personal circumstances.

A sentence of 1 year in custody followed by 2 years probation was imposed, and a discretionary DNA order was declined.

The accused, Abu Mandal, was charged under s. 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for selling items intending they be used in the unlawful production of a Schedule I substance (methamphetamine).

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence that Mandal sold chemicals and equipment to an individual operating a clandestine methamphetamine lab.

The central issue was whether Mandal possessed the requisite intent.

The court found that Mandal had knowledge of the unlawful end-use of the chemicals, which was sufficient to establish intent, rejecting the defence's argument that a desire for the outcome was required.

The court relied on principles from aiding and abetting cases under the Criminal Code.

Mandal was found guilty.

The applicant brought an application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a hotel room, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The police had relied on information from an anonymous caller, two confidential informants, and surveillance observations to obtain the warrant.

The court applied the Debot criteria and found the informant information to be compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court concluded that the issuing justice had sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant and dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute the wife of the defendant driver as a party defendant on the basis of misnomer, after discovering she was the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing her vehicle was not involved and citing delay.

The court found the pleading clearly intended to sue the owner of the vehicle and that the factual dispute over which vehicle was involved could not be resolved on the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action moved to strike the jury notice because pandemic-related public health restrictions made it unlikely a civil jury trial could proceed as scheduled in June 2021.

The defendant opposed, preferring to adjourn the trial until a jury was available.

The court noted that local conditions in Kingston meant no civil jury trials would be held in 2021, and an adjournment would delay the trial until at least April 2022, causing prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, ordering that if the case is called during the June 2021 sittings, it will proceed without a jury, but if it must be adjourned due to lack of judicial resources, the jury notice may be restored if a jury trial is available at the rescheduled date.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for optometric services and an occupational therapy assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were caused by a pre-existing brain aneurysm and other life stressors rather than the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but-for' test for causation and found the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's increased symptoms.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners over the respondent's assessor, concluding the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefits.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that granted the applicant entitlement to two treatment plans.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by relying on the applicant's affidavit evidence after the respondent had waived cross-examination under the mistaken belief that the affidavit was being withdrawn.

The Adjudicator agreed that a significant error of fact and breach of procedural fairness occurred, as the Tribunal had relied heavily on the untested affidavit in its original decision.

The reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing on written submissions without the affidavit was ordered.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to produce all materials and a transcript from her Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefit application hearing.

The plaintiff had applied to convert her CPP retirement pension to a disability pension, but the application was dismissed because she missed the 15-month window, and the substantive merits of her disability were never adjudicated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were irrelevant to the issue decided by the tribunal and that the request amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also noted that the plaintiff had already produced approximately 1,200 pages of medical records from her CPP file, making further production disproportionate.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied treatment plans for optometric services and occupational therapy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's impairments, including post-traumatic vision syndrome and headaches, were caused by the accident.

The Tribunal held that the optometric services were reasonable and necessary.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide proper medical reasons for denying the occupational therapy plan, violating s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and thus was required to pay for it under s. 38(11).

Both treatment plans were approved with interest.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, who resides in Ottawa, to attend a neuropsychological independent medical examination in Mississauga.

The plaintiff objected, providing medical opinions that the 450 km travel would be medically detrimental to her recovery from a traumatic brain injury.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while a defendant generally has the right to choose their medical expert, the choice must not be unreasonably inconvenient or compromise the plaintiff's medical well-being, especially when alternative experts are available closer to the plaintiff's residence.

The accused was stopped while driving on Highway 401.

The officer discovered the driver was suspended and using a false identity, leading to an arrest for obstructing a peace officer.

A subsequent search of the vehicle incident to arrest revealed a large quantity of cash and cocaine.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing lack of grounds for arrest, unlawful search, and failure to restate the right to counsel upon the discovery of drugs.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the arrest and search lawful, and entered findings of guilt on the drug and obstruction charges.

The accused, Joseph Patrick Boomhower, Beverly A. Boomhower, and Travis Joseph Boomhower, faced charges related to marijuana production, possession for trafficking, simple possession, improper firearms storage, and breach of recognizance.

The court found Travis Joseph Boomhower not guilty on all firearms-related charges, accepting his testimony that he believed the firearms had been removed from the home as per his bail conditions.

Joseph Patrick Boomhower and Beverly A. Boomhower were found guilty of improper storage of one 10-gauge shotgun, joint possession of approximately 22 lbs of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of 330 grams of marijuana found in their home.

The court rejected Travis's uncorroborated testimony regarding the marijuana operation as a short-term arrangement with a cousin, finding it inconsistent with the evidence.

The plaintiff, injured in a motor vehicle accident, suffered chronic pain and pain-related depression, which was treated by her family doctor and a neuropsychologist.

The defendant moved for an independent psychiatric examination of the plaintiff by a specific psychiatrist, Dr. Monte Bail.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found insufficient evidence to warrant a psychiatric examination, noting the plaintiff had never been treated by a psychiatrist and her psychological condition had improved.

Granting the order would significantly delay the upcoming trial.

The court also made strong obiter comments that Dr. Bail would not have been permitted to conduct the examination due to previous judicial findings of lack of credibility and failure to adhere to expert duties under Rule 4.1.01.

The applicant, Tammy Hilda Amey, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

She was charged jointly with two co-accused in relation to a cocaine trafficking operation.

The total delay was 31 months.

The court found that 11 months of the delay was attributable to the unavailability of a co-accused's counsel, which did not breach the applicant's rights as the Crown was not yet obliged to sever her charges.

The remaining 8.5 months of Crown and institutional delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

Finding no actual prejudice, the court dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation, failed to disclose arguably relevant documents, and failed to file pre-hearing materials.

After the applicant ignored a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed for non-compliance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's discrimination application pending the outcome of his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim.

The applicant alleged his employment was terminated due to his disability, while the respondents claimed he was laid off due to lack of work.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB proceeding would likely not determine the core human rights issue of whether the termination was discriminatory.