Norman Peel

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing that the evidence at trial did not support the conclusion that the offence occurred in 1999 as alleged in the information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the date of the offence is not an essential element unless it is critical and the accused is misled or prejudiced.

The court found the appellant knew the case he had to meet and the date played no part in his defence.

The plaintiff egg producer sued the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada for negligent investigation after its flock was suspected of salmonella contamination, leading the plaintiff to destroy the flock before final negative test results were received.

The motion judge found that the agencies owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither agency owed a private duty of care to the plaintiff.

The relationship lacked sufficient proximity, and the Health of Animals Act demonstrated a legislative intent to exclude a private law duty through its statutory compensation scheme and immunity clause.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding of guilt for neglect of duty and the penalties imposed for that offence, insubordination, and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a civilian employee while on duty and misusing the police email system.

The Commission upheld the finding of guilt for neglect of duty, finding it was supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalties, reducing a two-rank demotion to a one-rank demotion for twelve months, finding the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors such as the appellant's exemplary service record, remorse, and rehabilitation potential.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board cancelling their basic production quota for participating in illegal sales of tobacco.

The Tribunal found that evidence from an RCMP investigation supported the finding that tobacco was shipped from the appellants' farm to Quebec on two occasions and that the appellants were aware of these shipments.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty of quota cancellation, finding it appropriate given the severity of the infraction in a highly regulated industry.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board that revoked his licence to produce tobacco and cancelled his 10,000 pounds of Basic Production Quota and 1999 Marketing Quota.

The appellant had previously pled guilty to Excise Act charges for selling tobacco to an unlicensed buyer.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the Basic Production Quota but allowed the appellant to market his 1999 marketing quota, finding that he had a reasonable expectation to market his 1998 carryover crop.

The appellant, a chicken producer, appealed a decision of the Chicken Farmers of Ontario finding that he had violated marketing regulations by producing and marketing 139,010 kilograms of unreported chicken.

The Board had assessed license fees and levies and cancelled all of his basic production quota.

The Tribunal found clear evidence that the appellant participated in a scheme to shave weights and market unreported chicken.

However, noting this was a first offence, the Tribunal found the penalty too severe and reduced it to a cancellation of 50% of the appellant's basic quota units, while upholding the assessment of $61,391.87 in fees and levies.