J. Rosenthal

The Crown brought applications for the forfeiture of hundreds of forged paintings attributed to Norval Morrisseau.

The Estate of Norval Morrisseau brought a motion seeking standing as a party or leave to intervene, as well as leave to file expert evidence regarding the adverse effects of preserving the forgeries.

The court found that the Estate had a valid interest in the property and granted it leave to intervene.

The Estate's participation was limited to leading expert evidence on the harms caused by the forgeries and making submissions grounded in the evidentiary record.

The Crown brought applications for the return and forfeiture of hundreds of paintings and objects of art seized during the Voss, Lamont, Cowan, White, and Bremner investigations into forged art.

At a case conference, the court set out the evidentiary basis for the applications and directed that the parties must sign an undertaking restricting the use and dissemination of the disclosure material before the Crown provides it.

The court scheduled a further case conference to review the status of disclosure and set a schedule for the delivery of application records and responding materials.

The Crown applied to hold joint forfeiture hearings in multiple related prosecutions involving over 1,000 allegedly forged artworks seized from third parties.

The third parties and proposed intervenors either took no position or did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding that a joint hearing involving common third parties, evidence, and legal issues would be the most efficient process and ensure a consistent application of the law.

The defendant applied under section 11(b) of the Charter to stay charges of impaired driving and exceed 80, alleging unreasonable delay.

The court assumed the total delay was 21 months and 2 days, exceeding the presumptive ceiling.

The central issue was whether the COVID-19 pandemic constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The court found that the pandemic directly impacted the case by preventing the Crown's proactive efforts to secure earlier trial dates and by burdening the court system with a massive backlog, thereby preventing rescheduling.

The period of delay attributable to the pandemic was sufficient to bring the case below the presumptive ceiling.

The accused was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and impaired operation of a vessel causing death following the death of an eight-year-old child during a canoeing incident on the Muskoka River during spring run-off.

The accused had consumed alcohol and cannabis before taking the child canoeing toward a waterfall to retrieve a barrel, resulting in the canoe capsizing and the child drowning.

The court imposed a six-year penitentiary sentence and a ten-year prohibition on operating a vessel, finding the accused's conduct demonstrated wanton and reckless disregard for the child's life and safety.

Applications by Uber Canada Inc. and alleged Uber driver Ersan Zukic for stays of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on alleged violations of their right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The defendants were charged with bylaw offences under the City of Mississauga Public Vehicle Licensing By-law 420-04.

The court applied the new analytical framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which establishes presumptive ceilings of 18 months for provincial court proceedings.

The court found that the total delay of approximately 24-26 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling and that the prosecution failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay.

The court also found that the transitional exceptional circumstance did not apply as the prosecution failed to prove reasonable reliance on the pre-existing law.

Stays of proceedings were granted for all three charges.