D. Spence

The appellant appealed his six-month sentence for accessing child pornography, arguing that the mandatory minimum penalty under s. 163.1(4.1)(b) of the Criminal Code violates s. 12 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the constitutional challenge to be raised for the first time on appeal and found the mandatory minimum to be grossly disproportionate based on reasonable hypotheticals.

The mandatory minimum was declared of no force or effect.

The court varied the sentence to four months, less pre-sentence custody, to be served in the community via a conditional sentence order due to exceptional circumstances including the passage of time, the appellant's health, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol after being found asleep at the wheel at an intersection.

Upon arrest, the officer delayed reading the right to counsel instruction for seven minutes while securing the vehicle and retrieving notes.

The court found this delay violated the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights, noting a systemic misunderstanding of the immediacy requirement by the police service.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath test results under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness and repetitive nature of the breach, resulting in the dismissal of the charge.

The court also found a s. 8 breach regarding video monitoring of the cell toilet, but dismissed the s. 9 arbitrary detention claim.

During a Commercial List case conference in a complex multi‑party commercial dispute, the court addressed ongoing discovery and production issues among numerous defendants and third parties.

The court directed timelines for outstanding undertakings and warned that unresolved production disputes would require formal motions before a Master.

The court emphasized counsel’s obligation to cooperate in resolving discovery issues and indicated that failure to do so could result in elevated or full indemnity costs.

Additional guidance was provided regarding potential motions for non‑party examinations and production of partnership financial statements.

The court scheduled a further case conference and noted that the matter would not proceed to trial as early as previously anticipated due to outstanding discovery issues.

During a Commercial List case management conference in a complex multi‑party securities and investment dispute, the court issued procedural directions governing ongoing litigation steps.

The court addressed the potential settlement motion involving certain defendants, confirmed the status of examinations for discovery, and ordered timelines for answering undertakings.

The judge provided structured options for handling refusals motions and warned that costs may be assessed per refusal to discourage unnecessary motions.

Additional directions were given regarding the timing of expert reports, a possible future summary judgment motion, and scheduling of the next case management conference.