M. Gregory Ellies

The accused was charged with drug trafficking after a police officer found cocaine in his rental vehicle following a traffic stop.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the initial traffic stop was a pretext for a criminal investigation and not a valid stop under the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The court also found that the officer's demands for the rental agreement and questions about the accused's travel itinerary constituted unreasonable searches and seizures.

Furthermore, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the multiple serious Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the drugs under section 24(2).

The appellant tenant appealed an eviction order issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board for rent arrears.

The appellant argued the Board failed to consider a previous order granting her a rent abatement and improperly proceeded in her absence due to a medical emergency.

On consent of the parties, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board committed a reversible error by failing to account for the prior abatement order.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a fresh hearing to be held concurrently with a new eviction application filed by the property's subsequent owner.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought partial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an injunction against the respondents for operating an unauthorized automobile repair shop.

The respondents opposed the costs, arguing the matter was not complex or important, and that the claimed costs were excessive.

The court found the matter important to the Municipality and upheld the full amount of partial indemnity costs claimed, addressing objections regarding excessive hours, computer research fees, photocopy charges, long-distance calls, courier costs, mileage for out-of-town counsel, and law clerk fees.

The applicant, Peter Best, as Estate Trustee During Litigation, sought to pass his accounts.

The objector, Steven Timothy Bryant, filed objections and requested an adjournment, which he failed to attend.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, finding the proposed affidavit evidence irrelevant and the objector's conduct abusive.

The court then granted the passing of accounts, finding all objections to compensation and estate accounting invalid.

The objector was made solely responsible for the costs of the hearing due to the frivolous nature of his objections and his failure to attend.

The appellant appealed and the respondent cross-appealed a trial decision regarding equalization of net family property, spousal support, and retroactive child support.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the net family property valuation and erred in allowing the equalization payment to be made over time without a finding of hardship.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support to the appellant, holding that the respondent's structured settlement annuity payments constituted income.

The cross-appeal regarding the exclusion of shares purchased with annuity funds was dismissed.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from operating an automobile repair shop, alleging contravention of a zoning by-law.

The respondents claimed legal non-conforming use.

The court found that the respondents failed to establish that an auto repair shop was operating at the property when the prohibiting by-law was enacted, as prior repairs were incidental to a towing business.

Furthermore, they failed to prove continuous operation of an auto repair shop after the towing business moved.

Consequently, the current use was not a legal non-conforming use, and the injunction was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his application.

He alleged his former employer, the Ottawa Catholic School Board, failed to accommodate his return to work from a medical leave by improperly requiring him to attend an independent medical examination (IME).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the employer had a bona fide reason to question the treating physician's medical information and was justified in requesting an IME.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to admit post-application evidence regarding the accommodation process.

The tenant, who lived in rent-geared-to-income premises, appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the rent increases were unlawful.

The Board ruled it lacked jurisdiction to determine the lawful rent under s. 203(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that because the tenant's rent was not payable under the Housing Services Act, s. 203(a) did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness of the rent charged.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant, a professional engineer, sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent's Complaints Committee refusing to refer his complaint against another engineer to the Discipline Committee.

The applicant alleged the other engineer engaged in professional misconduct by inappropriately sharing confidential shop drawings with a competitor and having a conflict of interest.

The Divisional Court found that while the Complaints Committee's written reasons were defective for lacking transparency, the record before the Committee provided ample justification for its decision.

Applying the principles from Newfoundland Nurses, the court supplemented the reasons with the record and concluded the decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The accused, Ghyslain Hebert, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was consent to sexual intercourse with the complainant, R.B. The court found the complainant's evidence credible, noting the accused's "boundary issues" and the complainant's actions being driven by fear rather than consent.

The defense of honest but mistaken belief in consent was rejected as the accused's actions (tearing clothing, telling the complainant to "shut up") were inconsistent with a reasonable belief in consent.

The Crown proved both the physical and mental elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilty.

The accused, C. L., was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving multiple complainants.

The Crown conceded one count, and the remaining six counts were dismissed after trial.

The court considered a similar fact evidence application, finding some evidence tainted by discussions between complainants, while other similar fact evidence was admissible.

Ultimately, due to significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in the complainants' evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt on all remaining charges, leading to an acquittal.

The parties lived in a common-law relationship.

After separation, the plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action for unjust enrichment, which was administratively dismissed after the defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiff then commenced a Superior Court action for unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was frivolous, barred by res judicata due to the Small Claims Court dismissal, or that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that an administrative dismissal is not a decision on the merits and does not trigger res judicata.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the plaintiff's contributions to the property.

The successful respondent on a motion for leave to appeal an OMB decision sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, partial indemnity costs.

The court denied substantial indemnity costs, finding the appellants' conduct did not warrant an elevated scale.

However, the court rejected the appellants' argument that costs should be limited to a standard $3,500, noting the appellants had raised 34 errors of law.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $20,858.67 to the respondent.

During a first-degree murder trial, the accused brought an application to adduce evidence of a third-party suspect, a Crown witness who had a sexual relationship with the deceased and a motive to harm him.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence connecting the witness to the crime scene and the deceased to establish an air of reality to the defence.

The application was granted, permitting the defence to pursue the witness as a third-party suspect.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to edit portions of his video-recorded police interview.

The defence argued that certain statements made by the interviewing officer expressing certainty of guilt and urging the accused to speak should be redacted as they would act as a 'voice for the Crown' and undermine the accused's right to silence.

The court agreed to redact segments where the officer suggested the accused had an option to explain himself or where the officer expressed disbelief at the accused's denials, finding these could undermine the right to silence or suggest undisclosed evidence.

Other segments providing context to the accused's admissions were retained.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which had dismissed their appeal from a city council decision denying their proposed 91-lot residential development in a coastal wetland area.

The applicants alleged numerous errors of law, including the Board's application of the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement instead of the 2005 version, its interpretation of 'negative impacts' and 'limited residential development', and procedural fairness issues regarding the admission of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the 2014 PPS, reasonably interpreted the planning policies, and that any procedural errors regarding expert evidence did not meet the test for granting leave.

The defence in a first-degree murder trial brought a pre-trial application requesting that the jury be permitted to take a view of the crime scene.

The Crown consented to the view, but an issue arose regarding whether the accused could waive his right to attend under s. 652(3) of the Criminal Code.

Declining to follow conflicting Ontario jurisprudence, the court held that s. 652(3) must be read in conjunction with s. 650(2)(b), permitting the accused to waive his attendance.

The application was granted with specific logistical conditions to protect the integrity of the trial.

The Crown applied for orders to exclude the public, ban publication of a witness's identity, and allow the witness to testify via closed circuit television (CCTV) during a first-degree murder trial.

The witness, the accused's former girlfriend, expressed stress about testifying and concerns for her child's privacy.

The court dismissed the requests for public exclusion and a publication ban, emphasizing the strong presumption of open courts and the importance of public scrutiny given the witness's credibility issues.

However, the court granted the request for the witness to testify via CCTV to facilitate her evidence while allowing the accused to face his accuser.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness and admissibility of a videotaped statement made by the accused, Mathew Hayes, in a first-degree murder trial.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to oppressive circumstances and police trickery, including alleged threats regarding the accused's girlfriend, use of an intimidating term ("goof"), a story undermining confidence in lawyers, a "non-confrontational" comment, a statement about not incriminating oneself, and the prolonged interview length despite attempts to end it.

The court found that none of the defence's concerns, individually or collectively, raised a reasonable doubt about the statement's voluntariness.

The statement, which contained denials contradicting video evidence, was deemed admissible as post-offence conduct.

The defendant hospital moved to compel the representative plaintiff in an uncertified class proceeding to provide medical records and other documents requested during her cross-examination on a certification affidavit.

The plaintiff sought damages for intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the certification issues and that their production would be disproportionate to the needs of the certification motion.

The court also clarified that plaintiff's counsel did not breach an undertaking.