Kristian Bonn

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and his summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly apply the W. (D.) test for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge's reasons suggested a credibility contest, misstated the standard of proof, and misapprehended key evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought an extension of time to claim expenses following an unsuccessful arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator granted the extension, finding the delay was inadvertent and not excessive.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the claim for expenses, rejecting the applicant's argument that the case raised a novel issue.

The arbitrator noted that under the amended O. Reg. 664, a successful party should not be penalized absent misconduct, and thus the unsuccessful applicant was not entitled to expenses.

The applicant's husband was electrocuted while operating a mobile crane on a highway construction site.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that the crane was not an 'automobile'.

The arbitrator applied a two-step test and found that the crane was not an automobile in ordinary parlance.

Furthermore, the crane was excluded from the extended definition of a motor vehicle because it was being used as a 'road-building machine' at the time of the incident.

As the crane was not an automobile, the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule, and the claim for benefits was dismissed.

The complainant brought a preliminary motion before the Board of Inquiry to add eight party respondents to her human rights complaint.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided to refer the complaint against only two respondents, explicitly declining to refer it against the others.

The complainant argued the Board had jurisdiction to add the remaining respondents under s. 39(2)(d) of the Human Rights Code.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to add respondents where the Commission had already considered and expressly decided not to refer the complaint against them.

The Board held that reviewing the Commission's referral decision falls within the exclusive supervisory jurisdiction of the Divisional Court.