Julia Lauren Lefebvre

John Doe brought a motion to extend the time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a lower court order that denied his standing to appear as an anonymous party and make submissions on an Anti-SLAPP motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that Doe did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant period, his delay was a result of a failed litigation strategy, and granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the responding parties.

The court also found the proposed appeal lacked merit, rejecting the novel argument that Anti-SLAPP provisions protect anonymity in litigation.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued his detention.

He sought an absolute discharge or, alternatively, a transfer to a less secure psychiatric facility.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, supported by expert evidence.

The request for transfer was also denied as the proposed facilities lacked all-male units, a necessary condition given the appellant's history.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his detention order.

The Court of Appeal found the Board erred in its application of the "significant risk" test, concluding there was insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was allowed, and an absolute discharge was granted.

The appellant appealed two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

The first disposition, which transferred him to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), was dismissed as moot by the Court of Appeal as it had been superseded.

The second disposition, which ordered his detention at the highly secure Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care due to worsening behaviour and significant threat to public safety, was upheld.

The court found the Board's decision reasonable, emphasizing that public safety, including the safety of hospital staff and co-patients, is the paramount consideration under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, and deferred to the Board's expertise in managing the risk posed by the individual.

This is an appeal from a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The original disposition became moot due to a subsequent detention order.

The appellant sought to incorporate the reasons from the new disposition into the current appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to hear it without a full and current record pertaining to the most recent disposition.

The appellant, a patient found not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, sought a stay of a Superior Court order authorizing involuntary antipsychotic treatment.

This motion for a stay was brought pending his appeal of a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that there was no serious question to be determined on appeal, the appellant would not suffer irreparable harm if the stay was denied, and the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored denying the stay.

The court emphasized the patient's suffering and the risk to hospital staff when he remained untreated.

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 appellant, who had been found not criminally responsible for violent offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board requiring his continued detention at a mental health centre.

He argued the Board erred in rejecting an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given expert evidence that the appellant posed a high risk of violence, lacked insight, and was unwilling to follow conditions.

A detention order was found to be the least restrictive disposition.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he remained a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, and that it erred in refusing to transfer him to a less secure hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the appellant's history of violence.

The refusal to transfer was also reasonable given the hospital risk assessment indicating the appellant required better symptom control before moving to a less secure environment.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR), had been eligible to live in a community residential setting since 2014 but remained in forensic custody due to a lack of funded supportive housing.

He brought a Charter application arguing his continued detention violated his section 7 liberty rights.

The Ontario Review Board dismissed the application, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to grant a funding remedy and that the proper parties were not present.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board had broad inquisitorial powers and jurisdiction to grant the remedy.

The Court held that the appellant's continued detention due solely to a lack of funding was arbitrary and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The government was ordered to address the appellant's accommodation at his next scheduled annual review.

S.S. was convicted of multiple offences, including sexual assault, and the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation.

S.S. applied to re-open the trial and for habeas corpus based on a recanting affidavit from the complainant.

The court applied the rigorous test for re-opening a defence case after conviction, focusing on the cogency of the new evidence.

The complainant testified that she signed the affidavit under pressure and that its contents were largely untrue, reaffirming her trial evidence.

The court found the recantation lacked sufficient cogency to warrant re-opening the trial, as the complainant's credibility was already thoroughly assessed at trial and there was corroborating evidence.

The applications were dismissed.

The Crown applied to have the offender, R.R., declared a dangerous offender following convictions for two counts of sexual assault.

The defence sought a long-term offender designation.

The court considered R.R.'s extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assault convictions and uncharged allegations, a psychiatric assessment, and a Gladue report.

Applying the framework from R. v. Boutilier, the court found that while R.R. presented a risk of reoffending, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt a "high likelihood of harmful recidivism" or that his conduct was "intractable," particularly considering his age, future incarceration, and the availability of new correctional programs.

Consequently, the court did not designate R.R. a dangerous offender but found him to be a long-term offender, imposing a further 33 months imprisonment and 10 years of long-term supervision with specific conditions.

The plaintiff, Henry Lotin, brought two defamation actions against his brother-in-law Tomas Gregor and sister-in-law Andrea Gregor, seeking summary judgment, non-compensatory general damages, and an injunction.

The defendants also sought summary judgment.

The court dismissed the action against Tomas Gregor, finding that the alleged defamatory statements were not proven.

However, the court granted summary judgment in favour of Lotin against Andrea Gregor for two defamatory statements: one accusing Lotin of stealing from Agnes in a telephone conversation with Gabor, and another in a text message to Peter stating Lotin "ransacked" Agnes' condominium and "took things." Lotin was awarded $2,000 in general damages against Andrea Gregor.

The request for a permanent injunction was denied, as the court was not satisfied there was a likelihood of continued defamation.

Paul Bliss, a former CTV reporter, sued CTV Television Network Ltd. and Bell Media Inc. for defamation following news broadcasts detailing sexual harassment allegations against him.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute arose under a collective agreement.

The court found that while the initial broadcast might relate to employment obligations, subsequent broadcasts with salacious details went beyond workplace issues and into general news reporting.

Therefore, the defamation claim did not arise under the collective agreement, and the court retained jurisdiction.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the defendants.

The appellants were entitled to costs on a full indemnity basis for the motion and proceedings below, with Corus Entertainment Inc. awarded $30,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $30,000, both inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

On the appeal itself, the appellants were successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, with Corus awarded $15,000 and the McSloy appellants awarded $15,000, both inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The request for damages under section 137.1(9) of the Courts of Justice Act was denied.

An incumbent city councillor sued his political opponent and members of her campaign team, along with a local radio station, for defamation arising from statements made during a municipal election campaign.

The defendant candidate had referenced the plaintiff's dated sexual assault conviction and characterized it as consistent with a pattern of bullying and intimidation.

The motion judge dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed all claims, finding that the defendants' expressions related to a matter of public interest and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient harm to outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression during an election campaign.

The accused, facing charges including breach of trust, fraudulent computer access, and organized crime affiliation, brought an application to compel the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to produce extensive computer records for his defence.

The CRA opposed, citing taxpayer privacy under the Income Tax Act and arguing the request was overly broad.

The Crown characterized the request as a fishing expedition.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to establish the likely relevance of the requested information to an issue at trial or witness competence, noting the vague assertions and the accused's own admissions of unauthorized access.

The plaintiff, a long-term employee without formal accounting qualifications, was terminated from her position as Controller following a corporate merger.

She brought an action for wrongful dismissal, discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against her former employer, its national affiliate, and its external auditor.

On a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants, the court dismissed the claims against the national affiliate and the auditor, as well as the claims for discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff 18 months' reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal, along with unpaid vacation pay and a promised legal fee allowance.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion by the defendants against the self-represented plaintiff.

The defendants sought $35,359.11 in costs, comprising partial indemnity until their offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court, while noting the defendants' offer was not Rule 49 compliant, exercised its discretion under Rule 57 and Rule 49 to award substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer due to the plaintiff's unacceptable conduct, bad faith dealings, and persistent disregard for court rules despite extensive litigation experience.

The court ultimately awarded the defendants $25,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The accused, a high school automotive technology teacher, was charged with sexual assault and related offences involving a student under 16 years of age.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the credibility of the complainant, as there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged events.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be fraught with inconsistencies regarding key dates, the frequency and duration of alleged sexual contact, and the circumstances under which the relationship allegedly began.

The complainant provided multiple conflicting versions of events to police, school officials, and friends.

Forensic evidence from the complainant's cell phone revealed no corroborating communications establishing a sexual relationship.

The accused's evidence was consistent, and corroborating testimony from his wife, former students, and the complainant's own friends contradicted the allegations.

The court found the accused had raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted him on all charges.