D. Harris

Garth Bent was found guilty of indecent assault of a male person, committed in 1982 when the victim was 13 and Bent was 22, acting as a camp leader.

This sentencing decision followed a trial, and Bent had a prior record from 2009/2010 for similar historical sexual offences for which he received a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and victim vulnerability, and mitigating factors including Bent's self-initiated withdrawal from youth work, voluntary counselling, and apologies to other known victims, as well as his crime-free life for 35 years.

The court found that specific deterrence and rehabilitation were not relevant, and imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, a life-term SOIRA order, and declined a weapons prohibition order by applying the most lenient statutory regime available between the time of the offence and sentencing.

The accused was tried for two counts of historical indecent assault against a male complainant relating to incidents in 1980-1982.

The first count alleged assaults at the accused's residence in Mississauga, while the second count alleged assaults during a summer camp canoe trip in Huntsville.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and admitted similar fact evidence regarding another camper.

The court found the accused not guilty on the first count due to reasonable doubt, but guilty on the second count, finding the complainant's evidence credible and supported by the similar fact evidence.

The appellant appealed a conviction for possession of cocaine under s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The drugs were found in plain view in the appellant’s bedroom after police attended the residence for a welfare check.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in concluding possession was proven because others could have accessed the room, and further erred by failing to identify a Charter issue concerning the search of a plastic bag containing the drugs.

The court held the evidence supported the inference that the appellant had knowledge and control over the drugs given their visibility and location in his bedroom.

The court also declined to entertain a Charter argument raised for the first time on appeal, finding it may have been a tactical decision at trial and that the evidentiary record was insufficient.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal, including 18 months' pay in lieu of notice, damages for the lost opportunity to sell his book of business, and a three-month extension for Wallace damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's calculation of the notice period and the award for the lost opportunity to sell the book of business.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the Wallace damages, finding that awarding them alongside damages for the lost opportunity to sell the book of business amounted to double recovery.

In an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the parties raised several preliminary issues.

The Board declined to dismiss the union's section 8 application without a hearing on the merits, finding that the adequacy of membership support must be assessed in light of all circumstances.

The Board ordered the union to proceed first with its evidence on all aspects of the case.

The Board also refused the respondent's request to cross-examine the Form 9 declarant, as there were no allegations of false statements or irregularities regarding the mailed membership evidence.

Finally, the Board ordered the union to produce any tape recordings and transcripts of statements made by company officials on which it intends to rely in the proceedings.

The grievor, a public servant, alleged that he was wrongly denied a position in the Executive Compensation Plan after his former position was abolished and he was assigned to a lower-classified position with salary protection.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness, procedure, and the Board's jurisdiction to order an appointment to the executive level.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the grievance timely and within its jurisdiction.

On the merits, the Board found that the grievor's former position was abolished under Section 17 of the Regulations, which only provides salary protection, rather than reclassified under Section 16, which would entitle him to the first available position at his former level.

The grievance was dismissed.