Justice Rondinelli

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft pleaded guilty to 60 charges under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, including 58 counts of unlawfully importing vehicles that did not conform to prescribed vehicle emissions standards and two counts of providing misleading information.

The company admitted to installing defeat devices in approximately 128,000 diesel vehicles imported into Canada between 2008 and 2015, which allowed the vehicles to pass emissions testing while emitting substantially higher nitrogen oxide levels during normal driving conditions.

The court imposed a fine of $196,500,000, the largest environmental fine in Canadian history at that time, reflecting the severity of the deliberate deception, the environmental and health risks created, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The City of Toronto appealed fourteen separate sentencing decisions where a Justice of the Peace reduced or suspended minimum fines prescribed under the Highway Traffic Act and Provincial Offences Act.

The appellants were charged with various traffic offences including red light camera violations and handheld device offences.

The Justice of the Peace invoked section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act to reduce fines below the statutory minimums, citing factors such as early guilty pleas, age, employment status, and financial circumstances.

The appellate court found that the Justice of the Peace erred in applying section 59(2) by treating exceptional circumstances too routinely and by considering immaterial factors such as guilty pleas.

The court allowed the appeal but did not increase the fines as requested by the City.

The court dismissed an application by three individuals (two environmentalists and a former Volkswagen vehicle owner) seeking to participate as parties in the criminal prosecution of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft for violations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The applicants sought to present victim impact statements and make submissions regarding restitution, fines, and sentencing.

The court held that the applicants lacked standing to participate as parties, as the Public Prosecution Service of Canada has carriage of the prosecution and speaks on behalf of the public.

The court noted that while victim impact statements are permitted under the Criminal Code, there is no statutory foundation for victims to become quasi-parties to criminal proceedings.

The applicant sought to withdraw her guilty plea to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, which she had entered on April 26, 2019.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court granted the application, finding that permitting withdrawal was necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Key factors included the applicant's self-identification as Indigenous, her religious faith, her belief in her innocence, the extraordinary pressure she faced due to custody and family court proceedings regarding her children, and her concerns about mental health during the plea process.

Applicants charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences related to possession and sale of cannabis brought a joint application challenging the constitutionality of sections 5(2) and 4 of the CDSA in combination with the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

The applicants argued the provisions violated sections 7, 15, and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding no violations of the Charter.

The court held that the ACMPR regime provided reasonable access to medical cannabis through multiple avenues and did not arbitrarily deprive applicants of liberty, discriminate against disabled persons or homeless individuals, or infringe freedom of expression.