Lawrence Alan Greenspon

The appellants brought an application seeking public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to provide such funding violates their Charter rights.

Ontario successfully moved to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler v. Ontario definitively resolved the issue.

On appeal, the appellants argued there was a reasonable prospect of revisiting Adler under the Bedford/Carter test due to new evidence of antisemitism and developments in international and constitutional law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proposed new evidence did not fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate in Adler, and that s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 remains a comprehensive code for denominational school rights.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day imposed for theft over $5,000, forgery, and possession of stolen property over $5,000 for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant had stolen the famous "Roaring Lion" portrait photograph of Winston Churchill by Yousuf Karsh from the Château Laurier Hotel in Ottawa, replaced it with a forgery, and sold the original through an auction house in London.

The majority upheld the sentence, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The dissenting judge found errors in principle in the sentencing judge's approach to establishing the sentencing range, particularly in relying on foreign precedents and narrowing focus to art crimes, and would have substituted a conditional sentence.

Tamara Lich and Christopher Barber were convicted of mischief arising from their leadership roles in the Freedom Convoy, which gridlocked Ottawa from January 29 to February 18, 2022.

Barber was additionally convicted of counselling others to disobey a Court Order.

The Crown sought unprecedented custodial sentences of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber.

The defence sought absolute discharges or non-custodial dispositions.

The court imposed conditional sentences of 18 months for Barber (concurrent with 3 months for the counselling conviction) and 15.5 months for Lich (after crediting 74 days pre-sentence custody), with strict conditions including house arrest, curfews, and community service.

The court rejected both the Crown's punitive approach and the defence's request for discharges, finding that conditional sentences with onerous conditions could achieve denunciation and deterrence while respecting principles of proportionality and restraint.

The appellant appealed an Immediate Suspension Order and a Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The Registrar argued that two firearm-related incidents at the licensed premises, including a shooting and the seizure of loaded firearms, demonstrated that the appellant's sole shareholder would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to implement effective security measures despite the incidents and prior warnings.

The Tribunal concluded that the past and present conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be operated safely, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring third party Cogeco Connexion Inc. to disclose basic subscriber information associated with a specific IP address.

The court distinguished between Norwich orders and Rule 30.10 orders, finding that as an Associate Judge, it could not grant equitable relief but could grant the requested order under Rule 30.10.

The court found the information sought was relevant and necessary, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case against the unknown defendants.

The motion was granted.

This decision concerns the theft of a culturally and historically significant original silver gelatin print of Winston Churchill, known as "The Roaring Lion," taken by Canadian photographer Yousuf Karsh.

The accused, Jeffrey Wood, an art dealer, stole the portrait from the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa, replaced it with a forged copy, and trafficked the original internationally through Sotheby’s auction house.

The court emphasized the unique cultural value of the artwork, the aggravating factors of forgery and trafficking, and the international scope of the crime.

After considering sentencing principles, including restraint for a first offender, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, concurrent on all counts, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors.

Criminal prosecution arising from the accuseds' leadership and organizing roles in the Ottawa Freedom Convoy protest.

The court held that the prolonged truck occupation and associated conduct in downtown Ottawa constituted mass mischief by materially interfering with residents', businesses', and institutions' lawful use and enjoyment of property, and that both accused were liable as principals and alternatively as aiders and abettors through leadership, fundraising, communications, and repeated exhortations to remain and "hold the line".

The statutory defence in s. 430(7) of the Criminal Code did not apply because the conduct and speeches were not solely communicative, but were intended to sustain the physical blockade.

The intimidation and obstruction counts were dismissed because the Crown did not prove the specific mens rea for those offences.

Christopher Barber was separately convicted of counselling disobedience of the horn injunction by directing truckers to sound their horns if police advanced.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion for a Norwich order compelling Change.org to produce subscriber information identifying the creator of a petition that allegedly defamed him.

The court reviewed the legal test for granting a Norwich order, including the necessity of the information, the relationship between the applicant and the third party, and the interests of justice.

The court found that all criteria were met and granted the order, allowing the plaintiff to obtain the requested information from Change.org.

This costs endorsement followed a partial success on appeal where the appellant, Justice of the Peace Lauzon, had her appeal from the merits decision dismissed but her appeal from the disposition decision allowed, resulting in a reprimand and 30-day suspension instead of removal from office.

While the parties agreed on costs for the appeal, Divisional Court, and leave motion, they disagreed on the costs of the original hearing before the Hearing Panel.

The appellant sought full reimbursement for these hearing costs, arguing her appeal success effectively overruled the reasons for their previous reduction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed this request, finding that the appellant had not sought leave to appeal the Divisional Court's decision on the Hearing Panel's costs recommendation, nor had she demonstrated any reversible error.

The court concluded that the partial success on appeal did not affect the reasonableness of the Hearing Panel's original costs recommendation, and therefore made no order regarding those costs.

The appellant, a justice of the peace, wrote a newspaper article criticizing the conduct of Crown prosecutors in bail courts.

A Hearing Panel found she committed judicial misconduct and recommended her removal from office, finding she was irremediably biased against Crown prosecutors.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the Panel's finding of bias was unreasonable as it relied on a subjective test and lacked evidentiary support.

The Court further held that the recommendation for removal was grossly disproportionate, failed to properly apply the Doré framework to balance the appellant's Charter right to freedom of expression, and ignored mitigating factors.

The appeal was allowed, and a reprimand with a 30-day suspension without pay was substituted.

The applicants, four Canadian men detained in northeastern Syria for suspected ISIS affiliation, applied for an order compelling the Canadian government to repatriate them.

The Federal Court found that the applicants' Charter section 6(1) mobility rights required the government to make a formal request for their repatriation, provide emergency travel documents, and appoint a representative for their handover.

The application was allowed in part and declaratory relief was granted.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that upheld a Hearing Officer's findings of misconduct and the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved driving a police cruiser without a valid license, failing to report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic, and deceiving a supervising officer.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission had properly addressed the applicant's arguments and reasonably upheld both the misconduct findings and the termination of employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a key organizer of the Freedom Convoy, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after a Justice of the Peace ordered her detention on secondary and tertiary grounds following an alleged breach of her release conditions.

The reviewing judge found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law by conflating the reverse onus at a bail hearing with the onus at trial, misinterpreting the release condition, and failing to consider material changes in circumstances.

Conducting a hearing de novo, the court concluded that the applicant did not pose a substantial risk to public safety and that her detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was granted and judicial interim release was ordered.

The Crown and the accused both sought a review of the accused's bail conditions related to charges arising from the Freedom Convoy.

The Crown alleged the accused breached her conditions by agreeing to accept an award, while the accused sought to vary her conditions to allow travel to Ontario and use of social media.

The court found no breach of conditions and determined that a material change in circumstances warranted a de novo review.

The court ordered the accused's continued release with varied conditions, maintaining the social media ban but modifying the geographic restriction to allow her to visit Ottawa outside the downtown core.

The applicant, Tamara Lich, sought to review a bail review decision, alleging errors of law in the imposed release conditions.

The Crown argued the Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to review a decision of another SCJ judge.

The court examined the interpretation of sections 520 and 521 of the Criminal Code, distinguishing between reviews based on material change in circumstances and those based on errors of law.

Relying on Ontario precedent (R. v. Saracino and R. v. Durrani) over Saskatchewan precedent (R. v. Smith), the court found that the Superior Court of Justice does have jurisdiction to review a bail decision made by another judge of the same court, regardless of whether the previous decision affirmed or vacated the justice's order, and whether the grounds for review are a change in circumstances or an error of law.

The applicant police officer sought a stay of his dismissal from the police service pending judicial review of an Ontario Civilian Police Commission decision that confirmed his termination for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm did not favor the applicant.

The court noted that the applicant's losses were primarily financial and could be remedied with back pay if his judicial review application succeeded, whereas granting routine stays would contravene legislative policy.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved operating a police vehicle with an expired licence, failing to immediately report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic outside his jurisdiction, and deceiving his supervisor about the incident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty of dismissal proportionate, particularly given the appellant's recent prior discipline resulting in a demotion.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of decisions by the Justices of the Peace Review Council finding her guilty of judicial misconduct and recommending her removal from office.

The misconduct stemmed from an article she published criticizing the bail system and making personal attacks on Crown Attorneys.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Review Council's decisions on misconduct, disposition, and costs compensation were reasonable and did not violate her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The appellant, a defendant in a defamation action, appealed a motions judge's decision refusing her leave to amend her statement of defence.

The motions judge had found the proposed amendments were properly pleaded and caused no prejudice, but concluded the motion itself was an abuse of process because the appellant had previously sought broad disclosure without particularizing her defence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 26 is broadly permissive and the motion to amend was not an abuse of process, as the amendments were integral to the defence and caused no prejudice.

The court permitted the amendments but upheld the motions judge's adverse costs award against the appellant for her prior litigation conduct.

The accused, Ahmed Ahmed, pleaded guilty to multiple offences including trafficking in crack cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of a loaded restricted weapon, possession of a firearm in violation of a prohibition order, and breach of recognizance.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a significant related criminal record, unlawful possession of a loaded handgun in violation of prior orders, and the harmful nature of crack cocaine.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and compliance with restrictive house arrest bail conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge applied principles of deterrence, denunciation, and totality, giving credit for pre-sentence custody (with additional credit for COVID-19 conditions) and restrictive bail.

The final sentence imposed was 1,006 days (approximately 2 years and 9 months) of incarceration, a lifetime firearm prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of money and items.