Margo MacKinnon

The accused pleaded guilty to a major mortgage fraud targeting an 83-year-old woman with dementia living in a long-term care home.

The accused and an unidentified female accomplice impersonated the victim and her son to secure a fraudulent mortgage, resulting in a loss of over $780,000 borne by the bank.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and deterrence given the vulnerability of the victim and the high moral blameworthiness of the offence.

The accused was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary and ordered to pay $583,455 in restitution.

The accused, a young man with no prior criminal record, was found guilty of possession of a prohibited firearm (a sawed-off semi-automatic rifle) with readily accessible ammunition, and possession of cocaine and marijuana.

The firearm and drugs were found hidden in his bedroom during a police search.

The court considered the sentencing principles, including the paramountcy of denunciation and general deterrence for serious firearm offences, while also giving significant weight to the accused's youth, disadvantaged background, and rehabilitative potential.

The court applied Gladue principles by analogy, acknowledging the impact of systemic racism on the accused's life.

A total sentence of 27 months imprisonment was imposed (24 months for the firearm offence, 3 months consecutive for cocaine possession, and 3 months concurrent for marijuana possession), reduced to an effective 18 months after 9 months credit for stringent pre-trial house arrest.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year/life weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of search warrants on three apartments and a motor vehicle.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence under sections 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's section 9 rights were not violated as police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

However, the court found violations of section 8 rights because the Information to Obtain, as amplified on review, failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence would be found at the target apartment.

The court also found a violation of section 10(b) rights due to an unjustified delay in providing access to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant challenged a telewarrant used to search his residence, alleging a Section 8 Charter violation due to an incorrect address on the warrant and a missing appendix.

The court found the warrant facially invalid due to the address error, constituting a Section 8 breach.

However, applying the R. v. Grant test, the court declined to exclude the seized evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and critical to the Crown's case.

The sub-facial attack on the warrant was rejected, and a judicial summary of redacted ITO portions was deemed adequate.

The accused, Anthony McCalla, sought to exclude evidence obtained during his arrest and apartment search, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

The court found that police had reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search warrants were validly issued.

While the initial warrantless entry to secure the apartment was justified by exigent circumstances, the police's subsequent five-hour occupation of the apartment while awaiting the warrant constituted a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

However, the court found no breach of s. 9 (arbitrary detention) or s. 10(a) (right to be promptly informed of reasons for arrest).

Applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that admitting the evidence, despite the s. 8 breach, would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the good faith of the officers, the reliability of the evidence, and its importance to the Crown's case.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, ammunition, cocaine, and marijuana following a search of his bedroom.

He admitted possession of the drugs and some ammunition but denied knowledge of a sawed-off rifle found in a knapsack in his closet.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding it riddled with coincidences and contradicted by his mother's evidence.

Applying the test for constructive possession and circumstantial evidence, the court concluded the only reasonable inference was that the accused knew about the valuable firearm hidden in his closet.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The respondent, Jah-Kiyo Desmond-Robinson, brought a Garofoli application challenging the legality of a search warrant under section 8 of the Charter and seeking to exclude evidence (a firearm, ammunition, and drugs) under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defence argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, which relied heavily on two confidential informants (CIs), was deficient.

The court considered the un-redacted ITO and a judicial summary, and allowed limited cross-examination of the affiant.

Applying the Debot "3Cs" criteria (compelling, credible, and confirmed), the court found that the CI information provided a reasonable basis for the authorizing justice to issue the warrant.

Consequently, the search was deemed lawful, and no section 8 Charter violation occurred.

In the alternative, had there been a breach, the court determined the evidence would still be admissible under section 24(2) due to the good faith of the police, the high reliability of the evidence, and society's strong interest in prosecuting serious offences involving illegal firearms and drugs.

Accused persons charged following a large police investigation sought disclosure of source materials underlying wiretap authorizations to support anticipated Garofoli and Dawson applications.

The defence argued that all investigative materials, including pre‑Part VI materials referenced or relied upon by the affiant, were presumptively relevant and disclosable under Stinchcombe principles.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that disclosure should be limited to materials relevant to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence at trial unless the defence first demonstrated a reasonable possibility that additional materials would assist in challenging the authorization.

The court acknowledged conceptual difficulties with the Crown’s narrower approach but held that existing authorities required an accused to meet a minimal relevance threshold before obtaining additional disclosure beyond what was before the authorizing judge.

Applying principles of judicial comity and following prior decisions adopting that approach, the court dismissed the disclosure applications.

The parties reached a memorandum of settlement regarding multiple grievances.

On consent, the Grievance Settlement Board issued an order incorporating the settlement terms, which included a confidentiality clause.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of any issues regarding implementation or interpretation.

The respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it had failed to accommodate the applicant on the basis of disability.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and miscalculated damages, relying on provisions of the collective agreement not tendered at the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondent failed to explain why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier and that reconsideration is not an appeal process.

The applicant, a curb side assistant, sustained serious neck and back injuries in a bus accident and requested modified duties upon returning to work.

The respondent employer refused to accommodate her in a pre-arranged post, claiming she did not have a 'bona fide disability' because her doctor's note did not explicitly use the term 'disabled'.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant had a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed to fulfill both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her up to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages, medical expenses, and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent to undergo human rights training.

The Employer brought a motion to limit the scope of two grievances to the specific events described therein, while the Union sought an interim ruling for the disclosure of investigation reports and interview notes.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the Employer's motion, finding the grievances were sufficiently broad to encompass the broader allegations of discrimination, reprisal, and harassment.

The Board granted the Union's request for disclosure, determining the documents were arguably relevant to the issues raised, but imposed strict confidentiality conditions to prevent workplace divisiveness.

During a teleconference call, the Union sought disclosure of particulars and documents relating to the employer's investigation of workplace accommodations for the grievor, as well as information on specific job vacancies.

The Vice-Chair of the Grievance Settlement Board ruled that all the requested information was arguably relevant and ordered it to be exchanged prior to the next mediation date.

The Union brought a preliminary motion seeking an order that the Employer proceed first in a grievance alleging failure to accommodate.

The Union argued the Employer possessed the relevant information regarding its reasons for failing to accommodate.

The Employer contended that essential facts regarding the nature of the disability and the adequacy of the accommodation provided were in dispute and within the grievor's knowledge.

The Grievance Settlement Board agreed with the Employer, finding that because the essential elements of the facts were in dispute, the Union must proceed first to call evidence on the merits.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to limit the scope of evidence in a grievance alleging discrimination and a poisoned workplace.

The employer sought to exclude evidence of allegations older than one year before the grievance was filed, while the union sought to introduce evidence dating back to 1987.

The Grievance Settlement Board balanced the union's need to show a pattern of discrimination against the employer's right to defend itself, noting the grievors were aware of their rights and provided no justification for the extreme delay.

The Board ruled that evidence of alleged discrimination dating back three years before the grievances were filed (August 1998) would be admissible.

The parties reconvened to resolve an implementation dispute regarding Minutes of Settlement that restored the grievor's full-time classified status.

The union argued the employer improperly pro-rated the grievor's vacation and sick leave credits by applying part-time provisions.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the settlement language clear and unambiguous, holding that specific clauses expressly limited the grievor's short-term sickness and vacation accruals based on her former regular part-time status and hours worked.

The grievance was dismissed.

The employer brought a preliminary motion objecting to the Grievance Settlement Board's jurisdiction to award monetary damages to a correctional officer who was assaulted by inmates.

The employer argued that the damages arose from a workplace accident and were exclusively compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to award damages for the accident itself, as those were covered by WSIA.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear claims regarding the employer's conduct after the assault and to award non-monetary remedies for breaches of the collective agreement's health and safety provisions, provided those claims were not compensable under WSIA.

The Board also ruled it had no jurisdiction to award punitive damages.

The applicant appealed an occupational health and safety order issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector.

Prior to the hearing, the Ministry advised the Board that the underlying order had been rescinded and requested that the appeal be vacated as moot.

The Board directed that if no party filed written objections within seven days, the appeal would be deemed terminated without further notice.

The Grievance Settlement Board ordered the Employer to change the employment status of the grievors, who were registered nurses working as classified regular part-time employees, to permanent classified full-time effective February 12, 2001.

The decision was issued without reasons at the direction of the parties.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

At the hearing, the employer's counsel requested an adjournment because its witnesses were unavailable, some being out of the country.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting that travel plans do not constitute extraordinary circumstances and the employer attended unprepared at its peril.

As the employer proffered no evidence to meet its onus, the application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was confirmed.