Cusimano v. City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 5611
CITATION: Cusimano v. City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 5611
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 397/11
DATE: 20110919
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, DAMBROT AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
AGUSTINE G. CUSIMANO
Applicant
(Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
CITY OF TORONTO
Respondent
(Applicant in Appeal)
Lorne Honickman and Rory Barnable, for the Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
Julian Heller, for the Intervenor/Appellant, Maria Augimeri
HEARD at Toronto: September 19, 2011
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J. (ORALLY)
[1] In his order of August 17, 2011, Lederman J. permitted certain affidavits to be filed subject to the panel hearing the appeal determining ultimate admissibility. Despite positions taken in the factums, the only issue of admissibility advanced before us related to the affidavit material filed by Augimeri.
[2] We are satisfied that that part of the Augimeri material relating to the efforts after the fact to determine the eligibility of voters by canvassing them and having them sign forms, is inadmissible.
[3] Our principle concerns relate to the hearsay nature of the evidence and its reliability having regard to the manner in which it was compiled. Our full reasons for this determination will be released later.
[4] The affidavit material filed by Mr. Honickman in response to this evidence will obviously not be considered by us either.
DAMBROT J.
JENNINGS J.
SPROAT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 19, 2011
Date of Release: September 26, 2011
CITATION: Cusimano v. City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 5611
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 397/11
DATE: 20110919
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, DAMBROT AND SPROAT JJ.
BETWEEN:
AGUSTINE G. CUSIMANO
Applicant
(Respondent in Appeal)
– and –
CITY OF TORONTO
Respondent
(Applicant in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 19, 2011
Date of Release: September 26, 2011