Adam Goodman

The Applicant, M.F., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal trial.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the end of trial was 677 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The court attributed 124 days of this delay to the defence for failing to raise 11(b) concerns in a timely manner after trial dates were set.

This reduced the net delay to 17.5 months, which falls below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The accused, C.V., was charged with two counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault against his former stepdaughter, A.T., relating to two instances of massaging in 2018 when A.T. was 14 or 15.

The court found A.T.'s testimony to have significant reliability concerns due to lack of recall and inconsistencies, particularly regarding the second massage witnessed by her mother, J.S. However, the court relied heavily on the accused's own statements, including a "confessions of sins" letter to his HR manager, which revealed his sexual purpose in performing the massages.

Despite the massages not appearing overtly sexual to an objective observer (J.S.), the accused's admitted sexual intent was sufficient to establish the sexual nature of the touching.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, with the sexual assault counts proposed to be stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The plaintiff in a class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding film capacitors moved for approval of a settlement with the Panasonic defendants and for approval of class counsel fees.

The court found the $1.35 million settlement, which included valuable cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair and reasonable despite being heavily discounted from the estimated exposure.

The court also approved the requested class counsel fees of 25% of the settlement, but ordered the payment to be split into two installments to incentivize counsel to advance the litigation more expeditiously.

The plaintiffs in a price-fixing class action regarding electrolytic capacitors moved for court approval of a $5.9 million settlement with the Panasonic defendants, as well as approval of class counsel fees and disbursements.

The court found the settlement, which included significant cooperation from the settling defendants, to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved the retainer agreements and the requested class counsel fees of $1,487,500 (25% of the settlement) and disbursements of $141,866.96, noting the complexity and risk of the litigation.

The plaintiffs, trustees of a pension fund, commenced a class action in Ontario and a similar one in Federal Court.

Settlements were reached with some defendants in the Federal Court action.

The plaintiffs sought court approval to discontinue the Ontario action, with prejudice and without costs, in favour of the Federal Court proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding no prejudice to putative class members as their claims would continue in the Federal Court, and that discontinuing the Ontario action would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of breaching probation and prohibition orders, as well as four counts of luring under section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in sexually explicit communications with two fifteen-year-old girls via Facebook, with the purpose of facilitating sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching.

The accused claimed his communications were intended solely for friendship and self-gratification fantasy.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, holding that the Crown need not prove an intention to ultimately commit the secondary offence, only that the communications were intended to facilitate or make easier the commission of such offences.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of breach of probation orders prohibiting internet access and communication with minors, and with luring a person under 16 years old.

The accused brought a Charter section 8 application to exclude evidence obtained from a seized smartphone on the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure.

The court considered four alleged breaches: observation of a password gesture in public, seizure and search of cellular phones from the residence without a specific warrant, the particularity of the warrant for the target smartphone, and whether the search was overly broad.

The court found one breach regarding the warrantless search of cellular phones seized from the residence but declined to exclude the evidence from the target smartphone under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with sexual assault simpliciter and being a person in authority to touch a young person for a sexual purpose.

The complainant, a 16-year-old high school student, alleged that the accused, her employer at a pharmacy, grabbed her buttocks over her skirt during her first day of work.

The accused denied the allegation, claiming the complainant fabricated the charge after he terminated her employment due to a disturbance caused by her boyfriend.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was generally well-delivered, there were inconsistencies regarding the boyfriend's presence in the pharmacy.

The accused's evidence, though at times unusual, raised reasonable doubt.

The court acquitted on all charges.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

During a trial for importing drugs, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of statements made by the accused to Canada Border Services Agency officers at the airport.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the statements made by both accused due to incomplete and unreliable officer notes that lacked context.

Furthermore, the court found that the officers breached one of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights by unreasonably delaying her opportunity to contact counsel.

The statements were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Following his acquittal on weapons charges arising from the G20 protests, the applicant sought costs of $10,310 against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging police and prosecutorial misconduct.

The court found no evidence of Crown misconduct or abuse of process in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Regarding police misconduct, the court held that the applicant had already received a remedy through the exclusion of evidence at trial, and that a civil claim for damages was the appropriate avenue for further relief.

The application for costs was dismissed.

The applicant was convicted of driving with a suspended licence at an ex parte trial after failing to appear on an adjourned trial date.

His application for an extension of time to appeal was denied by the Ontario Court of Justice.

He sought leave to appeal that denial to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act, as that section only permits appeals from judgments made pursuant to s. 116, not s. 85.

In any event, the appeal lacked merit because the defendant bore the responsibility to ascertain his adjourned trial date.