Mark L. Edwards

The applicant, Matthew Pinkney, sought to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle following a Highway Traffic Act stop, arguing that his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter were infringed.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable grounds to search under the Cannabis Control Act, based on the smell of fresh cannabis and the observation of cannabis shake.

The court held that the delay in informing Mr. Pinkney of the true reason for his detention was justified by officer safety concerns.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that dismissed its grievance regarding the calculation of partial-day absences for relief letter carriers.

The arbitrator had found that the collective agreement did not require rounding up daily totals of partial absences and had considered the union's history of withdrawing similar grievances.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and use of extrinsic evidence were justified and internally coherent.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Chicago Title Insurance Company brought a motion to disqualify the law firm Gardiner Roberts LLP from representing Anthony Maniaci in an indemnity application.

Chicago Title argued that Gardiner Roberts had a conflict of interest because the firm also represented Thomas Donnelly, a lawyer who had previously provided coverage opinions to Chicago Title and was threatened with a negligence claim by them.

Chicago Title asserted that Gardiner Roberts possessed confidential and privileged information through its representation of Donnelly that could be misused.

The court granted the motion, holding that the integrity of the judicial system required the removal of Gardiner Roberts as counsel of record due to the significant risk of conflict and the potential for lawyers involved in the coverage advice to become witnesses.

The applicant hospital sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision upholding grievances filed by the respondent union regarding statutory holiday premium pay for full-time employees.

The hospital argued the arbitrator unreasonably admitted past practice evidence and misinterpreted the clear language of the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator reasonably treated the evidence as contextual factual matrix evidence rather than past practice.

The court further held that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement was transparent, intelligible, and justified within her specialized expertise.

The court considered whether it could impose sentence under section 669.2 of the Criminal Code after the trial judge retired, where the trial judge’s reasons for conviction and acquittal on two counts of sexual assault were ambiguous and appeared to conflate evidence between counts.

The Crown argued for sentencing to proceed, while Amicus argued a mistrial was necessary due to the confusion in the trial judge’s reasons.

The court found the errors and conflation in the trial judge’s reasons too significant to proceed to sentencing and declared a mistrial, remitting the matter for a new trial.

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order from the Landlord and Tenant Board, which terminated his tenancy for permitting illegal acts (drug possession and trafficking) and impairing the safety of others in a supportive housing complex.

The tenant argued the adjudicator made findings based on 'no evidence' and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the adjudicator's factual conclusions were supported by ample circumstantial evidence and her reasons were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement regarding the ownership of a trained service dog.

The appellants argued that the respondent failed to provide original ownership documentation, which they claimed was an essential term of the settlement, and that the agreement was signed under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation that original documents were not required.

The court also rejected the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, noting they had voluntarily abandoned their duress claim and made a strategic decision not to call their former counsel.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, which confirmed that her allegations of police misconduct were unsubstantiated.

The applicant had complained about being apprehended by an OPP officer during a welfare check and having her belongings seized.

The Divisional Court found the Director's decision reasonable, noting the officer was justified under the Mental Health Act in apprehending the applicant due to concerns for her safety during a winter storm.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and declining to address Charter arguments raised for the first time on judicial review.

The plaintiff, a veterinarian employed by the defendant clinic for approximately 20 years, brought an action claiming wrongful or constructive dismissal.

The dispute arose after a client's partner made threats to clinic staff following the escape of a cat, leading the plaintiff to refuse to return to work unless the employer sent a formal client termination letter.

The employer refused to send the letter, believing it would inflame the situation, and instead implemented other security measures and requested the plaintiff return her keys.

The court held that the employer's safety measures were reasonable and the plaintiff's demand was unnecessary, meaning her refusal to return to work constituted a de facto resignation.

Accordingly, the action and all associated claims for moral and human rights damages were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying certain statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness by unilaterally separating her hearing from her mother's, drastically reducing the scheduled hearing time without adequate notice, and refusing to allow cross-examination of the respondent's occupational therapist whose report had been materially altered by an assessment company.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The defendant, Wrestling Canada Lutte, appealed a motion judge's decision declining to strike a breach of contract claim brought by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant breached a dispute resolution clause by failing to engage in dispute resolution before terminating their independent contractor agreement without cause.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that a valid without-cause termination does not constitute a 'dispute' under the contract.

Because the contract was validly terminated and no dispute had been referred to arbitration prior to termination, the dispute resolution clause was not triggered.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

The defendant was found guilty of several firearms and drug offences by a trial judge who provided brief oral reasons and promised written reasons to follow.

The trial judge subsequently retired without providing the written reasons.

Furthermore, the trial judge recorded convictions for seven counts, despite the defendant only being arraigned on five.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the brief oral reasons were insufficient to allow another judge to impose sentence under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code.

Given the lack of reasons, the unarraigned convictions, and the resulting miscarriage of justice, the court granted the motion and declared a mistrial.

The plaintiff, Vida Mansori, brought a claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act after slipping and falling in a public washroom at a condominium building managed by the defendants.

The plaintiff suffered significant injuries.

The court considered expert evidence on the slip resistance of the washroom tiles and the defendants' maintenance schedule.

The court found that the washroom floor was not inherently unsafe and that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to ensure safety, including regular cleaning and security checks.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, dismissing the action.

Damages were provisionally assessed at $100,000 had liability been found.

The defendant, Jacob Martin Norn, was sentenced for manslaughter and trafficking fentanyl after supplying the drug to a friend who subsequently died.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the dangerous nature of fentanyl, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation, while also weighing mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Despite arguments for a conditional sentence and alleged Charter breaches, the court imposed a custodial sentence, emphasizing the defendant's continued drug use post-conviction and the societal impact of fentanyl trafficking.

The applicant, a residents' association, sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to grant a heritage permit to a property owner (the intervenor) for the construction of a new house in a designated heritage conservation district.

The applicant argued the proposed house was too large and violated the mandatory mass and height guidelines of the District Plan, and that it was denied procedural fairness because it was not invited to appear before City Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the City's interpretation of the District Plan was reasonable and that the applicant had been afforded extensive procedural fairness during the committee stages, exceeding the requirements of the statutory scheme.

The appellant, Yuliya Gavrylyuk, appealed her conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing that a second breath technician video was disclosed late and that the trial judge erred in credibility findings and mens rea application.

The Superior Court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency and due diligence, as the video was previously disclosed and counsel made a tactical decision not to use it.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings on the lawfulness of the breath demand and the appellant's deliberate refusal, affirming the mens rea standard for refusal.

The defendant, charged with second-degree murder, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay, even after accounting for a deduction for judicial illness, fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The defence argued that despite being under the ceiling, the Crown's "culture of complacency" regarding disclosure and the overall timeline meant the case took "markedly longer than it should have." The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate "sustained efforts to expedite proceedings" and did not establish that the case took "markedly longer than it reasonably should have." The application for a stay was dismissed, with the court reiterating that stays below the Jordan ceiling are rare, particularly in homicide cases.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action.

The appellants had failed to deliver a statement of defence for over a year and offered no explanation for their delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in refusing to lift the default given the lack of evidence.

The court also noted the appellants improperly attempted to adduce fresh evidence without leave.

The applicant, The District Municipality of Muskoka, sought a declaration that a lease agreement with the respondent, David Gronfors, had validly terminated and an order for vacant possession of airport premises.

The respondent argued the lease had not expired, that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction due to the airport context (federal law), and that a forum selection clause mandated the Federal Court.

The court found that the provincial Commercial Tenancies Act applied, exercised its discretion to hear the case despite the forum selection clause, and determined the lease had indeed expired on October 31, 2023, based on clear lease terms and the respondent's prior inconsistent representations in other litigation.

A writ of possession was ordered.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical assessments and for leave to serve defence expert reports late, after failing to comply with the timelines mandated by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide a "reasonable explanation" for their non-compliance, as required by Rule 53.08.

The court emphasized that administrative failures or inattentiveness by counsel or staff do not constitute a reasonable explanation for such delays.