Michael A. Wilson

This case conference in a proposed class action by consumers against Uber for anti-competitive conduct established a timetable for a certification motion.

The court noted a parallel class action (Heller Action) by drivers against the same defendants, where drivers sought employee status, contrasting with the current action's pleading of drivers as self-employed.

The defendants are considering a motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the Heller Action regarding driver status.

Despite this, a timetable for the certification motion was set, with flexibility for future revisions.

Anna La Force was found guilty of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the violent, prolonged, and premeditated nature of the attack on a "Good Samaritan" and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included her youth, lack of criminal record, and family support.

The court also addressed the collateral consequence of potential deportation due to her permanent resident status, affirming that while it can be considered, it cannot compromise fundamental sentencing principles.

A sentence of 20 months' imprisonment for aggravated assault and a concurrent 12 months for assault with a weapon was imposed, along with probation and ancillary orders.

On a Crown application in a judge-alone prosecution for historical sexual offences against a child, the court admitted extrinsic similar fact evidence from another alleged victim who attended the same school at the same time.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court held that the live issue was whether the complainant's account reflected real events rather than fantasy, particularly in light of anticipated psychiatric evidence challenging reliability and truthfulness.

The surrounding circumstances of the alleged incidents, including age similarity, school setting, authority relationship, isolated locations, focus on genital touching, and reassuring language, supplied sufficient connectedness despite differences in number and invasiveness of acts.

The court found the risk of prejudice reduced in a judge-alone trial and concluded the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect.

Following convictions for luring, making, possessing, and accessing child pornography, and for sexual exploitation arising from a basketball coach's grooming of teenage players, the offender brought a constitutional challenge to multiple mandatory minimum sentences.

Applying the s. 12 framework from Nur, the court held that the one-year mandatory minimum for luring had already been invalidated by appellate authority and that the one-year mandatory minimum for sexual exploitation was grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable cases.

The court rejected the challenge to the one-year minimum for making child pornography and the six-month minimums for possession and access, finding those punishments not grossly disproportionate either for the offender or the proposed hypotheticals.

The application was therefore allowed in part, with sentencing reasons to follow.

Anna La Force was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and unlawful entry into a dwelling.

The charges stemmed from an attack on Allison Robinson, a friend of Luisa Botelho, with whom La Force and Botelho were both in a relationship with Cavin Banfield.

The court found La Force to be the aggressor, rejecting her self-defence claim.

She was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that La Force was in the dwelling without lawful excuse, leading to an acquittal on the unlawful entry charge.

The accused, charged with sexual offences, sought access to psychiatric reports about the complainant, which were unsealed exhibits in earlier, unrelated criminal proceedings.

The Ontario Court of Justice denied access, requiring a production application under s. 278.3(1) of the Criminal Code, finding the complainant retained a privacy interest.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash this order.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the reports, given they were discussed in open court and filed as unsealed exhibits.

The court held that the Dagenais/Mentuck standard for access to court records applied, not the s. 278.1 regime, and granted the certiorari application, ordering the release of the reports to the accused.

Criminal trial concerning a basketball coach charged with multiple child pornography and sexual exploitation offences arising from text-message communications with underage players.

The court held that explicit photos and videos of a complainant's penis and masturbation were child pornography under s. 163.1, applying the objective approach in Sharpe, and rejected the accused's position that the exchanges were merely jokes or locker-room talk.

The court further found that the accused occupied a position of trust or authority over one complainant and that the private use exception was unavailable because the sexual activity was unlawful notwithstanding apparent consent.

Acquittals were entered on counts where age or statutory elements were not proved, but convictions were entered on multiple communicating, making, possession, access, invitation to sexual touching, and attempt counts.

The applicant, charged with child pornography and luring offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay was approximately 43 months.

After deducting defence delay and discrete events, the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

However, applying the transitional exceptional circumstances framework, the court found the delay was justified under the previous Morin guidelines.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with robbery and accessory after the fact, brought a motion to adjourn her jury trial due to late disclosure by the Crown.

The late disclosure included a police video re-enactment of the getaway route, undisclosed photographs, and a new will-say statement from a complainant that significantly altered the evidentiary landscape.

The court found that proceeding to trial without giving the defence adequate time to investigate and adapt to the new evidence would prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.

The motion for an adjournment was granted.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act for a proposed securities class action.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the company's ability to maintain its dividend, causing shareholders and debenture-holders to sustain losses when the dividend was cut.

The court dismissed the leave motion, finding no reasonable possibility that the secondary market misrepresentation claims would succeed at trial, as the defendants' statements were based on a genuine belief in their growth strategy at the time.

The court also dismissed the certification motion, holding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for the remaining common law negligent misrepresentation claims, which require individualized proof of reliance.

Following a successful family law motion terminating spousal support, the respondent sought costs exceeding $41,000 and relied on an offer to settle that was as favourable as the order obtained.

The court confirmed that under Rules 24 and 18 of the Family Law Rules, the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs and may receive full recovery costs where the result is at least as favourable as a prior offer.

However, the court emphasized that cost awards remain discretionary and must be fair, proportionate, and consider the financial circumstances of the parties.

Given the unsuccessful party’s limited financial resources and the disproportionate magnitude of the claimed fees relative to the issues argued, the court reduced the requested amount substantially.

Costs were fixed at $10,042.95.

The responding spouse brought a motion to change seeking termination or variation of spousal support ordered in 2000 following a marriage of approximately sixteen years.

The original order provided for $800 monthly support indexed annually and permitted a future review without proof of a material change in circumstances.

On review, the court found the recipient spouse had achieved economic self-sufficiency through sustained employment and rising income in the years after the order.

The court held that any compensatory basis for support had been satisfied after sixteen years of post-separation payments and that recent job loss unrelated to the marriage breakdown did not justify continuing support.

Spousal support was terminated prospectively and arrears related to indexing were offset by the chosen termination date.

A non-party purported to appeal a vesting order made in a Family Law Act proceeding, claiming he had purchased a 50% interest in the subject cottage property prior to the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had no standing as he was not a party to the original proceeding and had taken no steps in the Superior Court to be added as a party or to set aside the order.

The dismissal was without prejudice to any steps the appellant might take in the Superior Court.

The applicant, charged with multiple counts of robbery and related offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total time from arrest to the scheduled trial date was approximately 47.75 months.

The court analyzed the delay, finding that the significant time taken during the preliminary inquiry was largely due to the inherent time requirements of a complex voluntariness voir dire where the applicant testified, rather than unreasonable institutional or Crown delay.

Balancing the factors, including the serious nature of the charges and the societal interest in a trial on the merits, the court dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking, proceeds of crime, and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at a residence suspected to be a stash house.

The accused conceded guilt on the drug trafficking and proceeds of crime charges.

The central issue at trial was whether the accused had constructive possession of a loaded firearm found in a hall closet.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's use of the residence to store drugs and his frequent visits, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge and control of the firearm, as other individuals also had access to the residence.

The applicants applied to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of their s. 8 and s. 9 rights during an arrest and the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The Crown conceded the Charter breaches due to a heavily redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) that failed to show reasonable grounds.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the police conduct regarding the arrest was not at the serious end of the continuum and admitted the evidence found on the first applicant.

However, the court found the no-knock dynamic entry into the second applicant's home with children present was a profound incursion on her privacy rights, outweighing the reliability of the evidence, and excluded the evidence found in the residence.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her based on age and family status during a meeting regarding her work allocation.

The applicant claimed the individual respondent told her she was unqualified for her accounts payable role because she started at age 21 and that she did not need her job because she lived with her mother.

The Tribunal found the individual respondent's evidence more reliable than the applicant's, concluding that the alleged discriminatory statements were not made.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking a stay of proceedings due to the Crown's late disclosure of his cell phone records.

The records were disclosed after the accused had already testified at the preliminary inquiry, providing an alibi for the time of the alleged robberies.

The court found that the late disclosure violated the accused's rights under s. 7 of the Charter, as it impaired his ability to make full answer and defence.

However, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not justified.

Instead, the court ordered the exclusion of the accused's preliminary inquiry testimony regarding his alibi under s. 24(1) of the Charter, preventing the Crown from using it for cross-examination at trial.

The accused, charged with armed robberies, brought a pre-trial motion seeking disclosure of the Crown's prosecution file regarding a police officer's prior acquittal for manslaughter.

The accused alleged the officer was involved in beating him to extract a confession and sought the file to cross-examine the officer on his propensity for violence.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the requested information was clearly irrelevant, as an acquittal is a verdict of legal innocence and the facts underlying it cannot generally be used to establish propensity or credibility.

This sentencing decision concerned prolonged intrafamilial sexual abuse by a step-grandfather against two child complainants over a number of years.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the sexual assault counts duplicative of sexual interference counts, then emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing objectives for repeated child sexual abuse involving breach of trust.

Despite the offender's advanced age, health issues, and lack of criminal record, the court found substantial aggravating factors, including the complainants' very young ages, repeated abuse, use of pornography, inducements, secrecy, and profound harm.

A global custodial sentence of five years was imposed on the remaining counts, all concurrent, together with DNA, sex offender registry, child-contact prohibition, and weapons prohibition orders.