4 total
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.
The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Faieta J. dated July 17, 2023.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.
Tribunal unreasonably refused to dismiss human rights application alleging racial profiling already decided in criminal court.
The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario refusing to dismiss a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent had alleged racial profiling during a traffic stop, an issue previously raised and dismissed in a criminal proceeding before the Ontario Court of Justice.
The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances to review the interlocutory decision and held that the Tribunal's decision was unreasonable.
The Tribunal failed to properly apply the principles of issue estoppel and fairness as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, relying instead on generalized public policy concerns rather than a case-specific analysis.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.
Offender sentenced to 18 months' custody for historic indecent assault of his young daughter.
The offender was convicted of historic indecent assault against his daughter, who was between 7 and 9 years old at the time.
The Crown sought 18 months' custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.
The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children by a person in a position of trust.
The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence and imposed 18 months' custody followed by two years' probation, along with SOIRA and DNA orders.
Impaired driving appeal dismissed; trial judge properly found reasonable grounds for arrest.
The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample.
He argued that the trial judge failed to properly assess whether the arresting officer’s belief of impairment was objectively reasonable, improperly relied on the refusal to provide a breath sample, and placed undue weight on demeanor evidence when comparing in-court testimony to video evidence.
The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for reasonable and probable grounds and that the factual findings—odour of alcohol, slurred speech, presence of alcohol, and difficulty opening the glove compartment—supported the officer’s belief of impairment.
The court also held that refusal evidence was admissible and could support an adverse inference under the Criminal Code.
The appeal court found no reversible error in the credibility findings or evidentiary assessment.
