Michael R. Dambrot

The offender was found guilty of sexually assaulting his intimate partner while she was asleep.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4 years, while the defence sought 2 to 2.5 years.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal record, and the mitigating factor of a severe assault the offender suffered while in pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdowns.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought an application to admit a compilation of surveillance video recordings.

The compilation combined footage from the scene of the shooting and a subsequent location, and included enhancements such as spotlights and magnifiers.

The defence objected, arguing the compilation and enhancements could unduly influence the jury.

The court held that the compilation and spotlight enhancements were admissible, as they were substantially accurate and assisted the trier of fact without causing prejudice.

The use of a magnifier on the accused's clothing was excluded pending further evidence on whether it altered the image.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

At the hearing, the Board member refused to allow the tenants to present bank records from a phone to prove they had paid rent, while relying on the landlord's uncorroborated testimony.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached procedural fairness by denying the tenants an opportunity to present their evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The applicant, charged under the Security of Information Act, brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from an undercover operation pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant argued that the evidence was derived from a CSIS wiretap warrant that violated his s. 8 Charter rights due to a lack of candour by the affiant.

The court assumed a s. 8 breach had occurred but applied the Grant factors and concluded that the breach was not at the most serious end of the scale, the impact on the applicant's rights was diminished by several factors, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious national security charges on their merits was exceptionally high.

The motion to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was entitled to statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident.

The respondent had purchased the motorcycle the day before the accident but had not yet notified the insurer, who insured his other vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a motorcycle is a 'motor vehicle' required to be insured, and therefore an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act.

Consequently, the motorcycle qualified as a 'newly acquired automobile' under section 2.2.1 of the standard Ontario Automobile Policy, which provides automatic coverage for a 14-day grace period regardless of the insurer's internal policy against insuring motorcycles.

Following the offender's convictions for firearms and breach offences, the Crown applied for forfeiture of $4,900 CAD and $325 USD seized during his arrest.

The court dismissed the application under the offence-related property regime, noting that drug trafficking is a CDSA offence, not a Criminal Code offence.

However, relying on expert evidence regarding indicia of drug trafficking and the offender's criminal history, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the seized funds were proceeds of crime.

The forfeiture application was granted.

The offender was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and pleaded guilty to multiple breaches of court orders, including a weapons prohibition, recognizance, and probation.

The firearm was thrown from an 11th-floor window during a police raid and was found loaded and ready to fire.

The court found the firearm was possessed as a tool for drug trafficking, given the presence of scales, cash, and multiple cell phones.

As a recidivist firearms offender, the offender was sentenced to a total of 7 years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision determining he was not entitled to severance pay under s. 64 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board had concluded that the employer's payroll calculation for the $2.5 million threshold was restricted to its Ontario payroll, excluding its global payroll.

The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation unreasonable, holding that the calculation of payroll under s. 64 is not restricted to Ontario employment and must include global payroll.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to the Board.

The accused, charged with armed robbery and related offences, brought a second application to review his detention order, alleging material changes in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and potential unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the detention centre had effectively managed the virus and the accused failed to show an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.

Furthermore, the court held that the potential delay was largely attributable to the defence and did not constitute a material change that would have affected the initial bail decision.

The application was dismissed, and the accused remained detained on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to post an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a proposed trailer park's sewage works on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

The Minister relied on s. 32(1)(a) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which exempts proposals from posting if they are a step towards implementing a project approved by a tribunal after affording an opportunity for public participation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Minister's decision was reasonable, as the prior Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the trailer park development provided a sufficient opportunity for public participation concerning the sewage works.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's preliminary award regarding jurisdiction over a workplace grievance.

The union argued the application was premature as the arbitration was not yet complete.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative process, and dismissed the application as premature.

The defendants appealed a motions judge's decision refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution on a summary judgment motion.

The claims arose after the plaintiff was acquitted of sexual assault charges, with the trial judge finding the complainant lacked credibility on collateral issues.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred in equating the trial judge's adverse credibility findings on collateral issues with 'overwhelming evidence' that would vitiate the police's reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and prosecution.

The remaining claims were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a university adjudicator's decision regarding her sexual assault complaint against another student.

The adjudicator had deferred the outcome of the university's disciplinary appeal to the result of the respondent's pending criminal trial.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the adjudicator unlawfully delegated his decision-making authority and improperly imported the criminal standard of proof into an administrative proceeding.

The decision was quashed and remitted to a different adjudicator.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their motor vehicle dealer registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The tribunal found the appellants sold vehicles with false safety certificates, failed to disclose material defects, and breached registration conditions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the tribunal's factual findings and concluding that the penalty of revocation was not clearly unfit given the serious misconduct.

The applicant, charged under the Security of Information Act, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 38.14 of the Canada Evidence Act.

He argued that his right to a fair trial was compromised because relevant information in a CSIS wiretap affidavit was withheld from him due to an Attorney General's certificate, preventing him from making full answer and defence on a s. 24(2) Charter application.

The court found that while the judicial editing process was fair, the Attorney General's unreviewable redactions of relevant information adversely affected trial fairness by precluding a subfacial challenge to the warrant.

Instead of a stay, the court fashioned a lesser remedy, declaring a s. 8 Charter breach and directing that the reviewing judge assume the affidavit contained false or misleading information.

The accused was tried for unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm and unlawful possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

During the execution of a search warrant by the Emergency Task Force at an 11th-floor apartment, an officer stationed outside observed a loaded Glock handgun being thrown from a bedroom window.

The accused and his girlfriend were found in the bedroom.

The court rejected the defence's arguments that the officer could not have seen the gun fall or that it was planted, and found the girlfriend's testimony that she did not throw the gun credible.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused threw the loaded firearm out the window upon hearing the police breach the door, and found him guilty on both counts.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision which found the Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the tenants' application for rent abatement.

The landlord had previously commenced a Superior Court application for unpaid occupancy fees, and the tenants subsequently applied to the Board for rent abatement due to alleged lack of heat.

The Divisional Court held that the Board erred in law by concluding it could not decline jurisdiction and by failing to consider whether the tenants' application was an abuse of process.

The Court found that allowing the Board application to proceed would lead to duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as the tenants were raising the exact same issues as a set-off defense in the Superior Court action.

The appeal was allowed and the tenants' Board application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Parole Board refusing to order a new hearing for her temporary absence permit application.

Prior to the judicial review hearing, the applicant was granted parole, rendering the application moot.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the matter to provide guidance to the Board on the proper framework for assessing temporary absence cases.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the application, applying the doctrine of mootness and emphasizing that the court's role on judicial review is to assess the reasonableness of specific decisions, not to impose analytical frameworks on administrative decision-makers.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant veterinarian appealed the penalty and costs order of the Discipline Committee following a rehearing.

The Committee had ordered a one-month suspension and $65,000 in costs after the Divisional Court previously set aside some, but not all, findings of professional misconduct.

The appellant also brought several preliminary motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct, bias, and constitutional violations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the preliminary motions as being without merit or previously decided.

The Court also dismissed the appeal on penalty and costs, finding no error in principle and that the penalty was not clearly unfit.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent College in the amount of $15,000.

The Landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision denying an above-guideline rent increase for the cost of installing a fall arrest roof anchor system.

The Landlord argued it was denied procedural fairness when the LTB refused an adjournment to allow it to gather evidence proving the installation was legally necessary.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Landlord bore the onus of proving the expenditure was necessary to comply with building standards and should have attended the hearing prepared with such evidence.

The Court also rejected the argument that the LTB improperly relied on a confidential prehearing note.