Sunil Mathai

The Crown brought an application for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary hearing judge's decision committing the accused to stand trial for conspiracy to commit theft rather than conspiracy to commit robbery.

The Crown argued the judge impermissibly weighed evidence and failed to consider the whole of the evidence, specifically wiretap intercepts suggesting the accused was armed with a firearm.

The Superior Court found no error in the judge's handling of competing inferences but concluded the judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding the firearm.

The matter was remitted to the preliminary hearing judge for reconsideration.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after mistakenly entering the wrong apartment during a domestic assault call and physically detaining the occupant.

The Crown conceded the detention was lawful but argued the manner and force used were unreasonable.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and accepted the officer's account that the force used was minimal and tailored to the volatile circumstances.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was reasonably unnecessary under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code, and the charge was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application seeking a finding of civil contempt against the CBC and Post Media for allegedly breaching publication bans issued in a criminal proceeding.

The media outlets had published articles about related family court proceedings which the Crown argued, when read with prior reporting, could identify the victims (the 'mosaic effect').

The Superior Court found it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application and that proceeding by application was appropriate.

However, the court dismissed the contempt application, finding that the publication ban was not sufficiently clear due to a confusing warning issued in the family court proceedings.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief, finding it would have no practical utility.

The plaintiffs, Hydro One ratepayers, brought an action for misfeasance in public office against the Premier and Ministers of Finance and Energy regarding the privatization of Hydro One.

They alleged the sale was motivated by improper purposes to reward Liberal Party benefactors.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, finding the decision to sell Hydro One shares was a core policy decision authorized by the Electricity Act, 1998, and thus immune from judicial review in a civil tort action absent bad faith, which was not adequately pleaded.

The defendants requested a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who had commenced multiple similar actions, sued various government entities and a legal clinic over his involuntary committal to a hospital in 2010.

The court found the statement of claim lacked material facts, contained grandiose and legally baseless claims, and was barred by the six-year limitation period under the Limitations Act.

The action was dismissed against all defendants.

The plaintiff sued the police and Crown Attorneys for negligent investigation, unlawful arrest, and intentional infliction of mental suffering following an acquittal on a murder charge that involved a 'Mr. Big' operation.

The Crown Attorneys moved to strike the plaintiff's claim and a crossclaim brought by the police for negligent legal advice.

The court struck the plaintiff's claim against the Crown Attorneys, finding it barred by absolute common law immunity, which only allows claims for malicious prosecution.

However, the court refused to strike the police crossclaim for negligent legal advice, finding it was not plain and obvious that Crown Attorneys do not owe a duty of care to police when providing legal advice during an investigation.

The court also held that statutory immunity under s. 8 of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act applied to the plaintiff's claim but not the crossclaim.