Dan Guttman

The appellant, Mohsin Mirza, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had found the sexual encounter non-consensual.

The appeal raised three issues: errors in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability, improper reliance on stereotypes in treating the appellant's evidence, and applying an uneven standard of scrutiny.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the arguments essentially amounted to a disagreement with the trial judge's factual findings and that no material misapprehension of evidence or reversible error in credibility assessment was demonstrated.

The appellants appealed their guilty pleas and suspended sentences for assault, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence demonstrating they were misinformed by both their criminal and immigration lawyers regarding the immigration consequences of their pleas, specifically that they would face deportation.

The Superior Court of Justice admitted the fresh evidence, finding the pleas were uninformed and non-consensual.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, who pled guilty to manslaughter in 1986, sought a post-conviction disclosure order from the Crown in aid of an application for a Ministerial Review under s. 696.1 of the Criminal Code, claiming he had falsely confessed and was wrongfully convicted.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application for a disclosure order as premature (because the applicant had not exhausted his appeals) and moot (because the Crown had already disclosed all available documents).

However, the court granted declaratory relief, holding that the superior court has jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter to make post-conviction disclosure orders in aid of a Ministerial Review, and that convicted persons do not need the Crown's consent to communicate with public officials regarding their convictions.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision finding that the definition of 'minor injury' and the requirement for documented pre-existing conditions in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) violated section 15 of the Charter.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator erred by deciding the constitutional questions in a factual vacuum before determining whether the claimant actually suffered from chronic pain or had an undocumented pre-existing condition.

The arbitrator's order was rescinded, and the matter was remitted to arbitration for a determination on the merits of the claim for a psychological assessment.

The applicant sought a declaratory judgment affirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to order post-conviction disclosure for individuals claiming wrongful conviction.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion to strike the application, arguing the applicant lacked standing, the application was premature, and it failed to meet the section 7 Charter test.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the respondent had not met the high threshold of demonstrating it was plain, obvious, and beyond doubt that the application could not succeed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for breaching a recognizance under s. 810 of the Criminal Code by allowing his dogs to be outside unattended.

The trial judge focused on whether the appellant had made arrangements for others to care for the dogs and applied the “air of reality” analysis relating to exceptions to court orders.

On appeal, the court held that this approach misapprehended the defence evidence, which was a denial of the actus reus rather than reliance on an exception.

The trial judge improperly rejected a defence that had never been advanced and failed to address the core issue of whether the appellant had allowed the dogs to be outside.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The media applicants brought an application for a declaration that the police practice of impersonating journalists for criminal investigation and surveillance of public protests violates s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court found no evidence that plainclothes officers engaging in surveillance held themselves out as journalists.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not support a finding that the practice of plainclothes surveillance in the presence of media had a chilling effect on news gathering.

The application was dismissed.

On a summary conviction appeal from an assault causing bodily harm conviction arising from a nightclub incident, the appellant argued that the trial judge compromised trial fairness by independently downloading a Google Street View image and using it to reject the defence explanation for an injury.

The court held that while judges may take judicial notice of indisputable facts from reliable internet sources, they must not conduct their own investigation or rely on material not fairly put to the accused.

Because the image was not put to the appellant and was used to support an adverse credibility finding, a reasonable observer would conclude that the fairness of the trial was compromised.

The argument that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof was rejected when the reasons were read as a whole.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed claims related to chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, recurrent urinary tract infection, and migraines because the complainant failed to provide evidence of general recognition in the Ontario medical community that modifications to a regular healthy diet were required.

Claims related to chronic wounds, extreme obesity, hyperlipidemia, renal failure, and food allergy were withdrawn following a settlement.

The Tribunal issued directions for the complainant to provide further materials to pursue her remaining claims regarding osteoporosis and hypercholesterolemia.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting claims for several medical conditions.

The complainant failed to provide responsive information.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to those conditions as abandoned.

The Tribunal provided further directions and a deadline for the complainant to submit required materials if she wished to pursue her remaining claim regarding pre-dialysis renal failure.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction, the complainant's claims relating to several medical conditions were dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal provided directions and a deadline for the complainant to submit materials if he wished to pursue his remaining claim regarding cardiovascular disease.

The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

After the complainant's legal clinic ceased representation and she failed to respond to Case Assessment Directions, the Tribunal dismissed her claims relating to bipolar disorder, multiple chemical sensitivity, and other conditions as abandoned.

The Tribunal granted an extension for the complainant to file materials supporting her remaining claims regarding milk and wheat allergies, failing which those claims would also be dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims relating to chronic constipation, asthma, and COPD as abandoned because the complainant failed to file the required materials by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal issued directions for the remaining claim regarding cardiovascular disease, warning that it would also be dismissed as abandoned if the required materials were not filed by the specified deadline.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability in the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting several of his claims.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal regarding claims for chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, food allergies, milk, eggs and soy, and dysphagia.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed these claims as abandoned.

The Tribunal also directed the complainant to file specific materials by a set deadline to pursue his claim regarding cardiovascular disease, failing which it would also be dismissed.

Claims regarding other conditions remained subject to settlement negotiations.

The appellants appealed their sentences after their aggravated assault convictions were set aside, leaving only convictions for common assault.

The Court of Appeal found that deference to the trial judge was not warranted given the changed circumstances.

Noting the appellants' youth, first-offender status, lack of serious injury to the victim, and the time elapsed since the offence, the Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeals, and imposed conditional discharges with two years of probation and 200 hours of community service.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

After failing to provide required materials, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to food allergies, hearing loss, and osteoarthritis as abandoned.

The Tribunal issued directions and a deadline for the complainant to file materials if she wished to pursue her remaining claim regarding cardiovascular disease.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims relating to chronic constipation and heartburn as abandoned because the complainant failed to file required materials.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide reasons for denying special diet benefits for hepatitis C, and set a deadline for the complainant to file materials regarding the claim for cardiovascular disease, failing which it would also be dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims relating to chronic constipation, hepatic disorder, dysphagia, and food allergies as abandoned because the complainant failed to file the required materials.

The Tribunal provided directions for the complainant to pursue the remaining claim regarding cardiovascular disease, warning that failure to comply would result in that claim also being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim regarding diverticular disease as abandoned because the complainant failed to file required materials.

The Tribunal issued directions requiring the complainant to file materials by a specified date to pursue remaining claims regarding extreme obesity and cardiovascular disease, failing which those claims would also be dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired care and control and having a blood alcohol level over 80 mg, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing a s. 11(b) Charter motion and misapplied the law on care and control following the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Boudreault.

The Superior Court held that although the trial judge mischaracterized part of the delay as entirely neutral, the total Crown and institutional delay remained within the permissible range and did not violate the right to be tried within a reasonable time.

On the merits, the court found no error in the trial judge’s conclusion that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption of care and control and that the circumstances established a realistic risk of danger.

The accused was extremely intoxicated, seated in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle parked at a busy downtown intersection, and his evidence regarding an alternate plan not to drive was rejected as not credible.

The findings were consistent with the principles in Boudreault concerning realistic risk of danger.