Lawrence Alan Greenspon

Senator Michael Duffy sued the Senate of Canada for over $7 million in damages, alleging his suspension and denial of expenses were politically motivated, unconstitutional, and violated his Charter rights, despite his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Senate moved to dismiss the action, asserting parliamentary privilege.

The court granted the Senate's motion, finding that the Senate's decisions regarding member discipline, internal affairs, proceedings, and freedom of speech were protected by parliamentary privilege and thus immune from judicial review.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to quash an appeal by Fay Brunning, a lawyer representing persons in proceedings under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.

The appeal challenged a direction issued by the Eastern Administrative Judge requiring Brunning to appear before an Independent Assessment Process Adjudicator.

The Court of Appeal allowed the motion to quash, finding that the direction was an interlocutory order rather than a final order, and that any appeal from it should go to the Divisional Court with leave.

The court also found the appeal moot since the scheduled proceedings had already taken place.

The court noted that while Brunning's concerns about the judge's comments regarding her conduct were understandable, those comments were part of the reasons for judgment, not the order itself, and could be challenged in other pending appeals.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempted murder and attempt to overcome resistance by suffocation against his wife, and his sentence of 11 years in custody.

The sole issue on appeal concerned the propriety of a sentencing order under section 743.21 of the Criminal Code that imposed an absolute prohibition on contact with his children during the custodial portion of his sentence.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to recognize the division of responsibility between criminal sentencing and family law regimes, and that the family court or Children's Aid Society should determine the nature of his relationship with his children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was fit.

This decision addresses a recusal motion brought by counsel, Fay Brunning, seeking to have Justice Perell recuse himself from deciding costs against her personally.

The motion arose after Justice Perell issued a case management direction ordering Ms. Brunning to attend her client's Independent Assessment Process (IAP) hearing, following her stated intention not to attend due to dissatisfaction with a prior ruling.

Ms. Brunning argued that the direction created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no convincing evidence of bias and emphasizing the judge's role in administering the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) and ensuring access to justice for claimants.

This decision addresses a costs award sought by the Attorney General of Canada against counsel, Ms. Fay Brunning, personally.

The underlying matter involved Requests for Directions (RFDs) related to the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA), where Ms. Brunning represented claimants.

Canada sought $25,000 in costs, alleging Ms. Brunning brought duplicative, vexatious proceedings, made baseless and scandalous allegations against Canada and the courts, and unduly enlarged the proceedings.

The court found Ms. Brunning's conduct, including relitigating issues and defying court orders, fell within Rule 57.07(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and also warranted sanction under the court's inherent jurisdiction for seriously undermining the administration of justice.

Despite finding her conduct not dishonest or malicious, the court concluded it was an extraordinary case justifying a personal costs award.

Canada's request for $25,000 was granted, payable by Ms. Brunning personally.

Appeal from a trial judgment finding police liable for negligent investigation, false arrest, unlawful detention, unlawful imprisonment, and Charter breaches arising from the arrest of the respondent and execution of a public safety firearms warrant at his residence.

The trial judge awarded over $50,000 in damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in imposing a standard of care inconsistent with established jurisprudence, failed to apply proper legal tests, and engaged in impermissible second-guessing of police discretion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding the trial judge had erred in multiple respects including defining the standard of care without evidentiary basis, misapplying the reasonable and probable grounds test, and conducting improper warrant review.

The offender was convicted after trial of robbery of a gas bar.

He entered the store, approached the cashier with his hand in his pocket as if he had a gun, and demanded money.

He obtained over $100 and left.

There was no actual weapon, no violence, and no physical injury to the victim, though the victim was anxious.

The offender is 44 years old, employed as a journeyman refrigeration and air conditioning mechanic, and has a dated criminal record from 2007-2008.

He has a significant alcohol addiction that motivated the offence, which occurred during a three-day drinking bender.

He has a 13-year-old son whom he supports and sees on weekends.

The Crown sought one year incarceration followed by probation; the defence sought 90 days served on weekends followed by probation.

The plaintiffs, Upper Canada District School Board and Patricia Brown, sought an interim injunction to compel the defendant, James Gilcig o/a Seaway Media, to remove two allegedly defamatory publications from the internet and prohibit future similar publications.

The publications concerned Ms. Brown's handling of swastika graffiti at a school in 2013.

The court applied the modified test for interim injunctions in defamation cases, which requires a high degree of certainty that the plaintiff will succeed at trial and that the words are manifestly defamatory and impossible to justify.

While acknowledging the potential reputational harm to the plaintiffs, the court found that the plaintiffs' evidentiary record was incomplete, specifically lacking a sworn deposition from maintenance staff regarding the timely removal of the graffiti.

Consequently, the motion for an interim injunction was dismissed, though the plaintiffs were not precluded from bringing the motion again with a more complete record.

The Plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $117,629.60 after recovering modest damages (under $50,000 each) in an action against the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation, false arrest, unreasonable search and seizure, negligence in training, and Charter rights breaches.

The Defendants argued no costs should be awarded due to the low recovery, suggesting the case should have proceeded under Simplified Procedure.

The court found it reasonable for the Plaintiffs to have used the ordinary procedure given the importance of Charter rights, the need for discovery, oral evidence, and the complexity of legal issues.

However, the court found the Plaintiffs' counsel's docketing heavy, hourly rates inappropriate for the entire eight-year litigation, and the use of two senior lawyers unjustified given the modest recovery.

Considering proportionality and the importance of the issues, the court awarded the Plaintiffs $65,000 in costs, less $3,750 owed to the Defendants for an unsuccessful motion, resulting in a net recovery of $61,250.

The Crown appealed a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision that had set aside a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge had found that the respondent raised a doubt regarding the reliability of the breath-testing instrument based on a low calibration check.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge erred by failing to apply the proper standard of appellate review and by substituting his own view of the evidence for that of the trial judge.

The Court restored the conviction and sentence.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder of his daughter-in-law.

At trial, he advanced a non-insane automatism defence, claiming he was in a dissociative state when he shot the victim.

The sole ground of appeal concerned Crown counsel's closing address to the jury.

The defence argued that the Crown violated the principle in Browne v. Dunn by failing to confront defence witnesses with inferences and arguments later urged to the jury.

The trial judge found one Browne v. Dunn violation and two material misstatements of evidence but rejected seven other defence arguments.

On appeal, the court upheld the trial judge's rulings, finding the corrective instructions adequate and the other Crown submissions not improper.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown proceeded on facts arising from a collision with an Enbridge van.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches and excluded all evidence obtained from the unlawful stop through to the Intoxilyzer results.