Michael Figol

The accused was tried on allegations arising from a parent's physical intervention during a behavioural crisis involving a child with significant mental health and behavioural issues.

The court found the accused intentionally applied force without actual consent, but held the Crown had not disproved deemed consent arising from reasonable parental care and control in the circumstances.

The court further held that the force fell within s. 43 of the Criminal Code as minor, corrective, and restraining force used to secure medication and time-out compliance, notwithstanding some anger and frustration.

The defence of person under s. 34 failed because the immediate threat had passed, but the accused was acquitted on the basis of deemed consent and s. 43.

The respondent in a family law application was successful in a motion to question two non-parties regarding the applicant's alleged beneficial ownership of a property.

The respondent sought costs of the motion against the non-parties.

The court noted that costs against non-parties are only awarded in unusual circumstances, such as fraud or abuse of process.

Because the allegations of fraud against the non-parties remained unsubstantiated, the court reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge who will ultimately resolve the fraud allegations.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault arising from an incident involving his spouse, arguing the trial judge misapplied the principles from R. v. W.D. and improperly relied on the complainant’s demeanour to assess credibility.

The case turned on conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused, supported by photographic evidence of injury.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s reasons and concluded that the proper burden of proof analysis was expressly articulated and applied.

The trial judge’s brief observation about demeanour was expressly minimized as having little or no value.

The court found no error of law or misapplication of the W.D. framework and upheld the conviction.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for Pizzeria Defina.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving written objections.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the City of Toronto reached an agreement on conditions to be attached to the licence.

The Registrar took no position on the public interest merits.

The Board approved the application on consent, subject to conditions including restrictions on amplified sound, dance floors, and video games.

The applicant applied for a mortgage agent's licence and answered 'no' to a question about prior criminal convictions, believing she had received a pardon for a 1999 conviction.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the licence on the basis that she provided false information.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant's false statement was inadvertent and based on a plausible, albeit mistaken, belief that a solicitor had obtained a pardon on her behalf.

The Tribunal concluded that the false statement did not afford reasonable grounds to believe she was unsuitable to be licensed and ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence.

The complainant, a Black man, alleged that his landlords, a brother and sister, subjected him to severe racial harassment and discrimination over a period of years, culminating in his eviction.

The respondents repeatedly used racial slurs and made false accusations against him.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' conduct constituted harassment and created a poisoned environment in violation of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents were ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, $10,000 for mental anguish, and $415 in special damages, and the surviving respondent was ordered to attend anti-discrimination training and implement a human rights policy.