Mallihai Rasati Wilson

The accused, Jeffrey Phillippo, was found guilty of sexual assault.

The incident involved non-consensual touching of the victim, E.F., while she was asleep, including under her clothing.

The Crown sought a 90-day conditional sentence followed by two years' probation, while the defence argued for a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the intrusive nature of the touching, the victim's vulnerability, and the significant impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of prior record, employment, and voluntary counselling.

The court determined that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest due to the gravity of the offence.

Ultimately, the court imposed a 90-day conditional sentence, to be served entirely on house arrest, followed by 12 months' probation, finding it consistent with the principles of denunciation and specific deterrence.

Two consolidated appeals arising from a family law proceeding between parents concerning custody and access to their child.

The respondent appealed an order dismissing a recusal application against a judge, and the appellant appealed an order denying leave to amend pleadings to seek custody.

The court found the case had become a procedural morass characterized by lack of good faith efforts to resolve issues.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the appellant had pursued indirect procedural tactics rather than direct routes of review, and that the custody issue had been finally determined by a subsequent order that was not appealed.

The respondent in matrimonial litigation moved to have the former case management judge recuse himself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The new case management judge dismissed the motion, finding it premature and pointless as the former judge was not scheduled for future involvement.

The court determined the respondent had an ulterior motive to revisit prior rulings and that the motion constituted an abuse of process, contrary to the Family Law Rules' objectives of saving time and expense.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim to rectify a promissory note and the dissolution of an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants relied on contractual indemnity provisions in the promissory note and guarantee to claim full indemnity costs.

The court held that the plain language of the contracts entitled the main defendants to full indemnity costs.

The costs claimed were found to be reasonable under Rule 57.01, with a minor deduction for a defendant lawyer's time spent attending trial as a spectator.

A separate defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought to rectify a promissory note, arguing that the fixed due date of December 31, 2015, did not reflect the true intent of the parties and was a mistake.

Alternatively, they argued there was a subsequent agreement to defer payment until a new financing deal was completed.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the written terms of the note accurately reflected the parties' agreement and that no subsequent agreement to defer enforcement had been reached.

The interim injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the note was dissolved.

The accused was convicted of failing to comply with a probation order, breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit mischief, assault, and forcible seizure.

The Crown sought a declaration that the accused be designated a Long-Term Offender under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code and sought an eight-year long-term supervision order.

The defence challenged the application on Charter grounds, arguing unreasonable delay in sentencing proceedings.

The court dismissed the Charter application and declared the accused a Long-Term Offender, imposing a 60-day custodial sentence on top of pre-sentence detention credit, followed by a seven-year long-term supervision order.

The court found a substantial risk of reoffending, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, and determined that community control was possible only through a long-term supervision order.

The accused, Raffaello Fattore, pleaded guilty to extortion under s. 346(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of at least 120 days, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The Defence requested a suspended sentence with probation, citing the accused's youth, lack of prior record, and the severe impact on his legal career aspirations.

The court, considering sentencing principles, found the offence to be at the low end of the extortion spectrum, without violence or weapons.

It determined that specific deterrence did not require custody and that the accused had high rehabilitation potential.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, including conditions such as 100 hours of community service, and a DNA order, but declined a firearms prohibition order.

The accused was charged with four offences arising from a robbery at a mobile telephone store on Albion Road in Toronto on June 21, 2013: using an imitation firearm while committing robbery, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and having his face masked during the commission of robbery.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness testimony from the store employee, police observations at the scene, video evidence, and testimony from the accused's co-perpetrator who pleaded guilty.

The accused testified that he drove his co-perpetrator to the area to purchase a phone and marijuana, and that he was visiting a woman at her residence during the robbery.

The court rejected the accused's evidence and found him guilty on all four counts based on circumstantial evidence including the location of the vehicle, text messages between the accused and co-perpetrator, the false alibi, and physical evidence found in the vehicle.

The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual misbehaviour involving two child victims and two counts of disobeying court orders.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender (determinate) designation or, alternatively, a long-term offender designation.

The court rejected the dangerous offender application but imposed a long-term offender designation.

The offender received a global custodial sentence of 1,725 days (approximately 4 years 9.5 months) following credit for guilty plea and pre-sentence custody, followed by a 7-year long-term supervision order.

The court considered the offender's prior sexual conviction, the pattern of abuse spanning multiple victims and years, and the psychological harm to the victims in determining sentence.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a motion judge's decision that allowed an Ontario supervisory judge to sit outside the province with judges from British Columbia and Quebec to hear motions regarding a national class action settlement, without requiring a video link to an Ontario courtroom.

The Court of Appeal held that while superior courts have the inherent jurisdiction to conduct hearings outside their home province, the open court principle under section 135 of the Courts of Justice Act requires a video link to a reasonably accessible Ontario courtroom.

The appeal was allowed to amend the order to require a video link.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm without a licence following a search warrant execution at his residence.

After initially being detained pending bail, he was released on house arrest bail in May 2013.

He entered guilty pleas in February 2014, some weeks before scheduled preliminary inquiry dates.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months imprisonment, rejecting the Crown's position that a three-year penitentiary term was appropriate and the defence position that an 18-month sentence should be reduced further by credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The court also imposed a two-year probation order with conditions including community service, weapons prohibition, and reporting requirements.

This appeal addressed whether trial judges may fix rates of remuneration for amici curiae and order provincial payment in criminal proceedings where amici were appointed to preserve orderly process.

The majority held that while superior and statutory courts may appoint amici in exceptional circumstances, inherent or implied jurisdiction does not extend to fixing compensation rates absent constitutional or statutory authority.

The Court emphasized separation of powers and held public-funding allocation decisions belong to the legislative and executive branches.

Dissenting judges would have recognized fee-setting as necessarily incidental to the appointment power to protect judicial process integrity.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant union filed grievances claiming damages for employees' exposure to second-hand smoke in correctional facilities.

The Grievance Settlement Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for injuries compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, regardless of whether the claim was framed in tort or contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the substance of the claim precludes the Board from awarding damages for compensable injuries.

The appellant operated a truck stop on Highway 17 that was effectively put out of business when the province constructed a new section of Highway 417, severely restricting access to the property.

The Ontario Municipal Board awarded compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act.

The Court of Appeal set aside the award, finding the Board failed to adequately balance competing rights and to recognize the elevated importance of public utility.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that reasonableness of interference must focus on whether the individual claimant has shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden of construction, not on whether the public benefit outweighs private harm.

The Board's decision was restored.

The Attorney General appealed orders setting rates of compensation for amicus curiae appointed in three criminal proceedings.

The Crown argued that courts have no jurisdiction to fix the rate of compensation for amicus curiae, as only Parliament can allocate public funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that both superior and statutory courts have the jurisdiction to fix the rate of compensation for amicus curiae as a necessary incident of their jurisdiction to appoint amicus.

The court found that such orders do not infringe constitutional principles and are authorized by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act and the Financial Administration Act.

The trial judges did not err in setting rates that exceeded legal aid rates, as amicus serves the court and the administration of justice, and the rates were based on appropriate factors.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a claim to Casino Rama profits, the successful respondents sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity scale, citing the appellant's conduct and shifting theories.

The Court of Appeal declined to award elevated costs, finding the appellant's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $250,000 for the Chiefs of Ontario and OFNLP, and $75,000 for Ontario.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation (MFN) appealed the dismissal of its action claiming a 35% share of net profits from Casino Rama.

MFN argued that its selection as the host site for the casino created a binding contract with Ontario based on its submitted proposal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the site selection process did not constitute a binding tender or RFP process for revenue sharing, and that revenue sharing was intended to be negotiated separately among all First Nations.

The Court also rejected MFN's arguments regarding breach of fiduciary duty, misapprehension of the Aboriginal context, and reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge's interventions.

The appellants were successful on their appeal and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants costs fixed at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent Frontenac Ventures Corporation was ordered to pay $40,000, and the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario was ordered to pay $10,000, as its position during the original contempt and sentencing hearings was instrumental in leading to the appeal.

Following a successful appeal of sentences imposed for contempt, the appellants sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants their costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent corporation was ordered to pay $20,000, and the respondent Minister was ordered to pay $5,000, as the Minister's position during the original contempt and sentencing hearings was instrumental in leading to the appeal.

The appellants, a First Nation and its leaders, engaged in a peaceful protest and blockade to prevent a private mining company from conducting exploratory drilling on lands subject to an ongoing aboriginal land claim.

They were found in civil contempt for violating interim and interlocutory injunctions and were sentenced to six months' imprisonment and substantial fines.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the custodial and monetary sentences, holding that they were excessively harsh and that the sentencing principles from R. v. Gladue apply to aboriginal persons facing civil contempt proceedings.