Susan M. Chapman

A high school teacher was acquitted at trial of voyeurism contrary to s. 162(1)(c) of the Criminal Code after using a camera pen to surreptitiously record videos of female students focusing on their chests and cleavage.

The Crown appealed the acquittal on three grounds: whether the trial judge erred in finding no sexual purpose; whether evidence from a warrantless search should have been admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter; and whether the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The majority (Feldman and Watt JJ.A.) allowed the Crown's appeal on the sexual purpose issue but dismissed it on the privacy issue, finding that students in public areas of a school do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Huscroft J.A. dissented, arguing the students did have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers found the member guilty of professional misconduct under multiple subsections of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

The member did not attend the hearing.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's Certificate of Qualification and Registration and directed that the member receive a written reprimand to be recorded on the Register.

The applicant was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife following a jury trial.

He sought judicial interim release pending appeal, which was initially denied.

Three years later, he brought a second application for bail, citing new grounds of appeal, fresh evidence regarding a potential third-party suspect, and the passage of time as material changes in circumstances.

The Crown conceded that the appeal was arguable but opposed release on public interest grounds.

The court granted the application, finding that the interests of reviewability outweighed the interests of enforcement, particularly given the serious new ground relating to defence counsel's removal from the record, the substantial fresh evidence regarding an alternative suspect, the applicant's four years of incarceration pending appeal, and the imminent scheduling of the appeal hearing.

The self-represented appellant sought costs of $9,000 following an appeal, which included fees for counsel who assisted in preparing materials.

The respondent argued for costs of $2,728 on a partial indemnity basis, noting its success on a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court awarded the appellant $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, compensating for disbursements and partial indemnity for counsel assistance, offset by the respondent's successful motion.

The appellant appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Physiotherapists that revoked his certificate of registration on the basis of ungovernability.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued he was denied procedural fairness when the Hearing Panel refused his request for an adjournment after he was served with new materials on the eve of the penalty hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Panel failed to properly balance the public's interest against the serious prejudice to the appellant, and that he was entitled to a short adjournment to review the new materials.

The penalty order was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant moved to quash an amended preferred indictment adding a sexual assault count extending beyond the complainant's eighteenth birthday, and sought a stay for abuse of process.

The court held that evidence at the preliminary inquiry, particularly cross-examination about the pool incident chronology, could support a finding that the alleged assault occurred when the complainant was an adult, thereby permitting the added count under s. 574(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

While the defence established some potential prejudice because questioning had proceeded on the premise that only underage conduct was in issue, the court found no improper Crown motive and no basis for the exceptional remedy of a stay.

The availability of further cross-examination and a renewed third party records application adequately addressed any prejudice.

A bus driver employed by the Toronto Transit Commission was charged with failing to stop at a red light and careless driving following a collision with a pedestrian that resulted in death.

The defendant was operating a bus that struck and killed a pedestrian at an intersection controlled by traffic signals.

The Crown presented three civilian witnesses and an expert in collision reconstruction.

The defence called the defendant and an expert in driving instruction.

The court found the defendant not guilty of both charges, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant ran a red light, and that the defendant's driving did not constitute careless driving under the applicable legal standard.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a teacher who stored real and replica firearms, as well as live ammunition, at his school and allowed students to access them during class.

The teacher had previously pled guilty to criminal charges for possessing an unregistered firearm without a licence.

The Discipline Committee found the teacher guilty of professional misconduct, noting that his actions severely jeopardized the safety of students and staff.

Despite the teacher's subsequent health issues, the Committee ordered a 12-month suspension of his teaching certificate and directed that the decision be published with his name to serve as a general deterrent.

The appellant physiotherapist pleaded guilty to professional misconduct for misrepresenting his educational credentials and practice hours.

He appealed the Discipline Committee's penalty of a 12-month suspension and a $25,000 costs award.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the penalty was justified for specific and general deterrence given the serious nature of the misrepresentations, and that the costs award was an appropriate proportion of the actual costs incurred.

During a criminal trial for sexual assault and sexual exploitation arising from alleged touching of a student, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of other alleged sexually inappropriate remarks and gestures by the accused toward students.

The Crown argued the evidence formed part of the contextual narrative and was probative of whether the touching was sexual rather than innocent.

The court held that the proposed evidence relied on impermissible general propensity reasoning rather than a specific similar‑fact inference.

Concerns about potential collusion and contamination among witnesses further undermined any probative value.

Given the significant risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, the court excluded the evidence.

At a Commercial List case conference involving two related corporate disputes, the court addressed extensive procedural delays, voluminous filings, and lack of cooperation between counsel.

The proceedings involved claims relating to loan agreements, alleged rights to corporate shares, fiduciary duty breaches, and conspiracy allegations arising from financing arrangements and subsequent litigation.

The court declined to permit consolidation or bifurcation but ordered that both actions be heard together or sequentially.

Emphasizing proportionality under Rule 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court directed the parties to disclose damages calculations, draft opening statements, and detailed historical and projected litigation costs.

The directions aimed to enable meaningful case management and ensure efficient use of judicial resources.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion seeking leave to withdraw allegations of professional misconduct against the member.

The member had signed an Undertaking and Acknowledgment in which he resigned his membership, undertook never to teach again or seek reinstatement, and agreed to a notation on the Public Register.

The Discipline Committee granted the motion, finding that the withdrawal of the allegations in exchange for the undertaking served to protect the public interest.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, as well as her sentence, following an incident where she punched her spouse, resulting in a ruptured spleen.

The appellant argued that the Crown failed to prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt based on the medical expert's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting that scientific proof of causation is not required and common sense inferences may suffice.

The sentence was also upheld as fit.

At the commencement of his sexual assault trial, the accused applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for disclosure of Toronto Police Service occurrence reports relating to the complainant.

The accused argued the records, which included a 2009 finding that the complainant was not criminally responsible in an unrelated matter, were relevant to her credibility and reliability.

The court dismissed the application, finding the records were sought solely for impermissible impeachment purposes, lacked a temporal nexus to the alleged assault, and did not meet the threshold of likely relevance required for production.

A high school teacher pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a 16-year-old student under section 153(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender engaged in a six-month sexual relationship with the student, involving fondling, mutual oral sex, masturbation, and digital penetration.

The conduct occurred in multiple locations including vehicles, hotel rooms in Italy, and tents in Kenya.

The offender took advantage of the student's vulnerability following her parents' separation and facilitated her deception of her parents to travel to Italy.

The court sentenced the offender to 14 months imprisonment and three years probation, emphasizing the serious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The applicant filed human rights applications against numerous dentists, physicians, and administrative staff, alleging discrimination based on disability and creed, as well as reprisal.

He claimed he received substandard medical and dental care because he was an ODSP recipient and because of his spiritual beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to the protected grounds under the Code.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to consider the violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel when assessing whether his s. 8 right was violated during the collection of a DNA sample.

He also argued that the s. 10(b) breach tainted his consent to provide the sample.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge implicitly considered the s. 10(b) violation under s. 24(2).

Furthermore, the appellant's signed waiver and consent, obtained after a reiteration of his right to counsel, broke the connection between the earlier s. 10(b) breach and the giving of the DNA sample.

The appellant, who had been subjected to years of coercive control and psychological abuse by her husband, stabbed him to death while he slept.

At trial, the jury acquitted her of murder but convicted her of manslaughter, and she was sentenced to eight years in prison.

She appealed the conviction, arguing self-defence should have been left to the jury, and appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no air of reality to the self-defence claim as she did not apprehend imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge erred in minimizing the mitigating impact of the psychological abuse and mischaracterizing the offence as a 'near murder'.

The sentence was reduced to time served (approximately three years).

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in section 4 of the Limitation Act.

They argued the motion judge conflated fraudulent concealment with discoverability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cause of action was discoverable when counsel received OHIP reports, and the appellants failed to investigate for 28 months before filing their claim.

The appellant physician moved for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) that confirmed the revocation of his hospital privileges.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant did not maintain a firm intention to appeal within the prescribed time limit, failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the appeal lacked merit.

Furthermore, granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent hospital, which had already moved forward with staffing and budgeting decisions.