Guy Ungaro

The appellants, owners and employees of a body-rub parlour, brought an action challenging a municipal by-law regulating such establishments.

They alleged the by-law was a colourable attempt to prohibit body-rub parlours, trenching on federal criminal law power, and that it violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

They also claimed damages for misfeasance in public office and intentional interference with economic interests.

The motions judge granted the City's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellants raised triable issues regarding the colourability of the by-law and the s. 8 Charter claim concerning warrantless searches.

However, the Court upheld the dismissal of the tort claims and the s. 9 Charter claim.

The appellants appealed an order declining jurisdiction on judicial review and habeas corpus regarding a child apprehension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applications judge properly declined jurisdiction because an effective alternative remedy existed in the ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court also noted that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant leave under s. 6(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, and that habeas corpus was unavailable as the child was detained under valid court orders.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for drug offences involving 2.575 kilograms of marijuana.

They argued the Crown failed to disclose an informant's identity and that police lacked reasonable grounds for arrest and search.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no substance to the non-disclosure complaint as the defence could have called the suspected informant, and concluding police had reasonable grounds based on their observations.

However, the sentence appeals were allowed, and the sentences were reduced to 27 months, as the original sentences were deemed excessive despite the appellants' serious criminal records.

The appellants appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal that allowed the Crown's appeal from their acquittal on a charge of conspiracy to commit arson.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to require the case to be put to the jury.