4 total
Accused found not criminally responsible for murder due to pre-existing delusional disorder despite heavy drug use.
The accused was charged with second degree murder after stabbing a stranger who was trying to help him.
The accused conceded he caused the death but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.
The Crown argued the psychotic episode was solely substance-induced due to the accused's heavy drug use.
The court applied the holistic approach, considering the internal cause and continuing danger factors, and found the accused suffered from a pre-existing delusional disorder that was operative at the time of the offence.
The court concluded the accused lacked the capacity to know his act was morally wrong and rendered a verdict of not criminally responsible.
Motions to strike appeal grounds adjourned pending respondent's compliance with extensive disclosure order.
The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought two motions to strike grounds of appeal, including Charter claims, related to the removal of over 200 dogs from the appellants' dog sledding business.
The appellants requested an adjournment of the motions because a recent disclosure order required the respondent to produce extensive materials regarding the removal and care of the animals.
The Animal Care Review Board granted the adjournment, finding that the pending disclosure would facilitate a more open process and informed participation by providing factual context relevant to the motions.
Motion for interim return of removed dogs dismissed; Board lacks authority without a full hearing.
The appellants, owners of a dog sledding business, appealed the removal of over 200 dogs by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.
They brought a preliminary motion seeking the interim return of the dogs pending the full hearing, arguing that a multiplicity of proceedings between the parties offended natural justice.
The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the other proceedings did not address the same issues and were mostly initiated by the appellants themselves.
Furthermore, under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board only has the authority to order the return of animals after a full hearing on the merits, unless both parties consent, which did not occur here.
Parties directed to submit a hearing plan ahead of the scheduled hearing for a quarry application.
This was the fifth Case Management Conference regarding an application by Freymond Lumber Ltd. for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act and an associated official plan amendment approved by the County of Hastings, which was appealed by No Place for a Quarry Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a hearing plan by September 8, 2021, and declined to amend the Procedural Order or Issues List at this time, leaving outstanding matters to be addressed at the commencement of the hearing.
