Michael Dineen

The accused, Alexander Campbell and Tyler Josling, were charged with manslaughter after restraining Frank Harbalis during a violent incident at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the force used, including a chokehold, was excessive and outside the scope of lawful self-defence or defence of others.

The court found that while a brief chokehold was applied, the actions of the accused were not unreasonable in the circumstances, given the sudden and dangerous situation.

Both were acquitted.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Rasim Kaba and Hassan Talebi for importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to commit those offences.

The court reviews the evidence, including the defendants' backgrounds, their relationship, the importation process, intercepted communications, and the police investigation.

The court finds both defendants' explanations implausible and concludes that the only reasonable inference is that both knew of the opium and conspired to import and traffic it.

Both are found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that comments made by the trial judge during sentencing created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

During sentencing, the trial judge made stereotypical remarks about aggressive driving cultures in war-torn countries, specifically referencing Israel, and linked this perception to the appellant, who immigrated from Afghanistan.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that these comments would lead a reasonable observer to believe the trial judge's credibility findings may have been unconsciously influenced by national and cultural stereotypes.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The decision concerns a bail application by Gurpreet Singh, who is sought for extradition to the United States on charges related to large-scale cocaine trafficking.

Singh proposed a strict house arrest bail plan with GPS monitoring and multiple sureties.

The court found the plan had strengths but ultimately denied bail due to a high risk of flight, citing Singh’s international connections, travel history, and lack of credible financial disclosure.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered an application to exclude evidence in a prosecution for child luring, where the evidence was obtained from electronic devices seized from the accused’s residence.

The defence alleged breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter, including improper use of an IP address without judicial authorization (in light of R. v. Bykovets), a search that exceeded the scope of the warrant, and delay/deficiencies in access to counsel.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including a warrantless search for luring evidence and serious s. 10(b) violations.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court excluded the evidence and acquitted the accused.

The court considered whether the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm under s. 344(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, recently upheld as constitutional in R. v. Hilbach, would violate the Charter rights of Mr. Dennis, who had already served a sentence for possession of the same firearm.

The court found that the total sentence was not grossly disproportionate and that the circumstances did not warrant a constitutional exemption or a finding of double punishment.

The mandatory minimum was imposed.

Following a jury conviction for sexual interference, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings based on the loss of the complainant's diary and the late disclosure of a police officer's email regarding the diary.

The trial judge assumed jurisdiction to hear the post-verdict application but dismissed it on the merits.

The court found that the police acted reasonably in photographing rather than seizing the diary, and that while the late disclosure of the email breached the accused's section 7 Charter rights, it was not a deliberate attempt to undermine the trial's fairness and did not warrant the drastic remedy of a stay of proceedings.

The accused stood trial for multiple offences against his former wife, including dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, mischief, and sexual assault.

The charges arose from three separate incidents: a dispute over a car, a physical struggle over a cell phone, and an alleged sexual assault.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the car incident and sexual assault to be deliberately exaggerated or false, resulting in acquittals for dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault.

However, based on the accused's own evidence and corroborating video, the court found him guilty of assault causing bodily harm and mischief, rejecting his claims of defence of property and self-defence as his use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The defendant, Jordan Maxwell, was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant alleged that Maxwell sexually assaulted her and threatened her life while she was babysitting his children.

Maxwell denied the allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

While finding the complainant more credible and believable than the defendant, the court noted inconsistencies and uncertainties in the complainant's evidence regarding timing and details, which prevented the Crown from proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found not guilty.

In a sexual interference trial, the child complainant refused to continue testifying during the second trial.

The defence moved for a mistrial, while the Crown sought to admit the complainant's testimony from the first trial.

The court dismissed the mistrial application and admitted portions of the complainant's prior testimony, finding that her emotional struggle was the reason for her unresponsiveness and that the defence had a full opportunity to cross-examine her at the first trial.

The decision applied the three-factor test from R. v. Hart and allowed the admission of evidence under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused were charged with firearms offences after police found two loaded handguns in satchels in the back seat of a rented vehicle they were occupying.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and DNA profiles linking the accused to the firearms.

The court acquitted one accused entirely, finding reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge and control of the firearms.

The other accused was acquitted of charges relating to one firearm due to the possibility of indirect DNA transfer, but convicted of possession of the second firearm.

The court also held that the second firearm, which was inoperable but easily repairable, met the definition of a firearm for simple possession but not for possession in a motor vehicle or possession of a loaded firearm.

The appellant appealed her conviction for impaired driving, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and challenging the trial judge's Charter rulings.

She claimed her trial counsel failed to advise her of the option to testify only on the voir dire, leading her to make damaging admissions during the trial proper.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategic decisions did not fall below the standard of reasonable professional assistance and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal judge also upheld the trial judge's decisions to deny a stay of proceedings for lost video evidence and to admit the police officers' observations despite Charter breaches.

The applicant, Nahom Mussie, facing human trafficking and fentanyl possession charges, brought an application alleging breaches of his Charter rights related to his arrest, search warrants, strip search, and right to counsel, and sought a remedy for lost police notes.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search warrants, despite significant errors in the Informations to Obtain, were valid after amplification and redaction, as the errors were inadvertent.

The strip search was also found justified.

A minor breach of the right to counsel was found, but the remedy was limited to excluding the applicant's answer to a single question.

The application for a stay due to lost notes was deemed premature.

Ultimately, the evidence seized from the search warrants was deemed admissible.

The plaintiff provided electrical engineering and consulting services for a cannabis grow operation on tribal lands in California.

The project was shut down by a federal law enforcement raid, and the plaintiff was left with unpaid invoices for its work and materials.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, who had provided the funding for the project, arguing that the site manager who hired the plaintiff was acting as the defendant's agent.

The court found that the defendant and the tribe were in a partnership to operate the project, and that the site manager had actual authority to contract on behalf of the partnership.

The defendant was held liable for the unpaid invoices plus contractual interest.

The plaintiff, a warehouse employee of 13.5 years, sued for wrongful dismissal after the defendant outsourced its warehouse operations.

The plaintiff declined an offer of employment from the outsourcing company before his termination took effect.

The court held that the plaintiff did not fail to mitigate his damages because the alternative job offer was made and withdrawn prior to his actual termination.

The court awarded the plaintiff 12 months of reasonable notice and dismissed the claim for punitive damages.

The plaintiff, W.C., brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, R.S., for sexual assault and battery.

The claim stemmed from a sexual relationship that began when the plaintiff was approximately 14 years old and the defendant, her father's cousin, was significantly older and in a position of trust.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to a criminal charge related to the relationship.

The court found that the defendant's admitted facts in the criminal proceedings, combined with his evidence on the motion, established liability for sexual battery.

The court determined that any "consent" at the outset was not legally effective due to the plaintiff's age, inexperience, and the defendant's exploitation of a position of trust.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that lack of resistance implied consent.

The motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.

The court also assessed damages, awarding $225,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages, plus $14,400 for future therapy, totaling $289,400.

Punitive damages were not awarded given the prior criminal sentence.

The plaintiff, an international bank headquartered in Nevis, sued the defendants in Ontario for defamation and breach of a confidentiality agreement.

The defendants, who had been noted in default, moved to set aside the default and dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The court set aside the noting in default, finding a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court then dismissed the action, enforcing a forum selection clause in the parties' investment agreement that designated St. Kitts and Nevis as the exclusive jurisdiction.

Alternatively, the court found that Nevis was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) applied for an order under s. 87 of the Health Professions Procedure Code to compel the respondent physician to produce patient records and cooperate with an investigation into her conduct regarding COVID-19 vaccine exemptions and public statements.

The respondent resisted, arguing privacy infringements and constitutional issues, and sought to expand the scope of the application beyond the limits set by prior Divisional Court rulings.

The court, bound by the Divisional Court's guidance, found the s. 87 application's scope narrow, rejecting constitutional challenges and arguments of overbreadth or abuse of process.

The court granted the order, finding the CPSO had established grounds for a statutory injunction and that the respondent had no legitimate reason to refuse cooperation.

A publication ban was also ordered, and the CPSO was awarded costs.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought the forfeiture of $270,313 as proceeds of crime under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, following a police seizure during an investigation into an illegal gambling operation.

The money was found in the bedroom of Dimitri Kellesis, who contended it comprised his parents' life savings and his legitimate earnings.

The court found Kellesis's explanation for his presence at the gambling location and the source of most of the funds not credible.

However, it accepted that $75,000 of the seized amount represented legitimate savings belonging to his mother.

The court also ruled that police opinion evidence, without expert qualification, was inadmissible for proving proceeds of crime on a balance of probabilities.

The application for forfeiture was allowed in part, with the non-Canadian currency returned to Kellesis and $75,000 returned to his mother, while the remaining funds were forfeited.

The plaintiff, a depot manager with five years of service, was laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic and brought a wrongful dismissal action.

The court found the termination clause in his employment contract void because its 'just cause' provision violated the Employment Standards Act.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court awarded the plaintiff seven months of reasonable notice.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff's Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) payments should not be deducted from his damages award.