J. Sanderson Graham

The Ontario Review Board conducted a mandatory annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault and other offences, has diagnoses of schizophrenia and severe stimulant use disorder.

While the accused demonstrated stability in the community, the Board found that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of rapid clinical destabilization if he relapses into substance use.

The Board concluded that a conditional discharge was premature and ordered the continuation of the existing detention order to ensure adequate supervision and risk management.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for mischief and other offences, suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorders.

While the accused demonstrated clinical stability in a highly structured community setting, the Board found that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his reliance on supervision for medication compliance and abstinence.

The Board concluded that continuing the existing detention order remains the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm, was subject to an annual review hearing by the Ontario Review Board.

The Hospital and the Attorney General recommended continued detention, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his schizophrenia, limited insight, and upcoming transitions in housing and employment.

The Board ordered a continued detention order with reduced reporting requirements and added travel passes to Quebec.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm and was subject to a detention order at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizoaffective disorder and has a history of substance use and violence, continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order, but expanded the accused's community living privileges to include the Greater Toronto Area to facilitate his transition to supportive housing.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for multiple violent offences.

The accused, diagnosed with Schizophrenia, had been living in the community under a conditional discharge and recently transitioned to oral medication.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to transient psychotic symptoms.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge, with the addition of a discretionary travel pass to allow the accused to travel to Saudi Arabia and/or Somalia accompanied by an approved person.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon.

The accused, diagnosed with ultra-treatment resistant schizophrenia, had been residing in the community under a Conditional Discharge.

The Board accepted expert evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight and the high risk of decompensation and violence if he were to discontinue his medication.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Conditional Discharge with a treatment condition, but declined to impose a weapons prohibition.

The plaintiffs, shareholders and creditors in Mobilicity, a wireless telecommunications company, sued the federal government for negligence and negligent misrepresentation arising from the 2008 AWS spectrum auction.

The plaintiffs alleged that Industry Canada represented that spectrum licences acquired at auction would be transferable to incumbent carriers after a five-year moratorium, and that they relied on this representation to invest approximately $250 million in equity and $95 million in debt to capitalize Mobilicity and bid for spectrum licences.

The plaintiffs further alleged that in 2013, the government unilaterally changed the transfer framework to prohibit transfers to incumbents, and in 2014-2015 interfered with Mobilicity's sales process through threats, media manipulation, and regulatory delay.

The court found the government liable for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, holding that it owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs based on specific representations made to induce investment, and that it breached that duty through the implementation of the 2013 Transfer Framework and subsequent interference in the sales process.

The court awarded damages based on a "but for" analysis, calculating what the plaintiffs would have earned in alternative investments had they not relied on the government's representations.

The defendant, Eldan Krcic, faced charges of theft, assault, and assault with a weapon arising from allegations of intimate partner violence.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, and photographic evidence of injuries.

The court assessed witness credibility and reliability, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

While the complainant's testimony had some credibility issues and the defendant's testimony was largely untruthful, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt due to residual doubts about the complainant's testimony and the unauthenticated nature of the photographic evidence.

All remaining charges were dismissed.

The defendant, Dwight Dube, was charged with impaired driving and over 80.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) due to excessive force during arrest and improper implementation of the right to counsel.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating section 7 of the Charter, but found no violation of sections 8, 9, or 10(b).

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the breath sample evidence and police observations of potential impairment, leading to an acquittal on both charges.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Health refusing to add a patent to the Patent Register under s 4(6) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations because the submission was past the 30-day deadline.

The applicant argued the Time Limits Act (COVID-19) suspended the deadline or that the Minister had discretion to extend it.

The Federal Court upheld the Minister's decision as reasonable, confirming that the 30-day timeline was strictly applied and not suspended by the COVID-19 relief legislation.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the defendant's conviction for two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, and one count of breach of recognizance.

The defendant attacked two victims with a knife in an unprovoked manner, causing serious injuries that could have been fatal.

The court found the defendant met the criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753(1)(a)(ii) based on a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to consequences.

Despite evidence that the defendant's schizoaffective disorder and polysubstance use disorder were theoretically treatable, the court concluded his violent conduct was intractable due to his consistent failure to seek and follow psychiatric treatment, lack of insight into his illness, and resistance to treatment.

The court imposed an indeterminate sentence, finding that neither a determinate sentence nor a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Health refusing to issue a Certificate of Supplementary Protection (CSP) for a vaccine patent.

The Minister classified the vaccine's adjuvant as a non-medicinal ingredient (an excipient), concluding the patent claimed a formulation and was therefore ineligible for a CSP.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the Minister's decision unreasonable because it failed to interpret "medicinal ingredient" consistently with the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the CETA Implementation Act, which define a protected product based on biological activity.

The plaintiffs moved to remove the defendant's designated representative for examination for discovery, Peter Hill, due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

Hill had a lucrative consulting contract with one of the incumbent telecommunications providers whose conduct was central to the action, and his contract required him to prefer his client's interests.

The court found that Hill's contractual obligations and his evasive testimony during discovery demonstrated a preference for the incumbent's interests over his duties as a witness, rendering him a demonstrably unsatisfactory representative.

The motion was granted, and Hill was ordered to be replaced by Kelly Gillis or another suitable witness.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance arising from violent attacks on two neighbours on October 10, 2016.

The Crown alleged the accused stabbed one victim multiple times in the head and neck/upper chest area with a knife.

The accused claimed the injuries were accidental and that he acted in self-defence against the other victim.

The court found that while the attack was vicious, unprovoked, and premeditated, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific intent to kill.

The court convicted on aggravated assault, weapons dangerous charges, and breach of recognizance, but acquitted on attempted murder and breach of probation.

A mid-trial ruling on a voluntariness voir dire concerning a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault, two counts of weapons dangerous, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped statement made during police interrogation.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt due to oppressive circumstances, including prolonged handcuffing, deprivation of clean clothing, sleep deprivation, and the use of excessive force during evidence collection.

The court also found that the accused should have been re-cautioned prior to the interview given his state of mind and the circumstances.

The defendant was charged with one count of assault and one count of mischief under $5,000.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, as well as photographic evidence.

The central issues were whether the Crown proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, the credibility of the witnesses, and whether self-defence applied.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the defendant's account as implausible and inconsistent.

The court determined that the defendant unlawfully assaulted the complainant by grabbing her neck and subsequently damaged her cell phone.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of formic acid pest control products for honey bees, brought an action against the federal Crown alleging misfeasance in public office, negligent misrepresentation, injurious falsehood, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The claims arose from the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's (PMRA) decisions to permit the continued use of unregistered 65% formic acid, grant emergency use registrations for competitor products, and require the plaintiff to register its products.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action.

The court found no evidence of deliberate or unlawful conduct by PMRA officials, no intent to harm the plaintiff, and no private law duty of care owed by the regulatory agency to the plaintiff.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a roadside stop and arrest.

The accused applied to exclude breath sample evidence on the grounds that the arresting officer failed to advise her of her right to counsel immediately upon arrest, in violation of s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

The court found the breach serious due to systemic failures by the Peel Regional Police to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Suberu, which established that "without delay" means "immediately." Despite the reliability of the evidence and the accused's decision not to contact counsel, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.

The charge was dismissed.

This motion arose from an application by the Attorney General of Canada seeking the return of confidential taxpayer information inadvertently sent to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and an order preventing its future use.

The CBC, as respondent in the main application, brought a motion to compel the production of various documents from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) that were refused during cross-examination on an affidavit.

The Master dismissed the CBC's motion, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the issues on the application, nor to the deponent's credibility, and that the requests constituted a 'fishing expedition'.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his father.

The accused admitted to the assault but claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused's father had thrown a roast and a beer bottle at the accused, and then advanced toward him.

The accused responded by forcing his father to the ground and restraining him.

The court accepted the accused's evidence over the complainant's, finding the complainant's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies regarding the cause of the argument, understatement of alcohol consumption, and poor recollection of events.

The court found that the accused's response was reasonable in the circumstances and dismissed the charge.