Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONSCDC

The Ministry of the Solicitor General sought judicial review of a Presiding Coroner's interlocutory decision regarding the scope of an upcoming inquest into seven deaths at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

The Coroner had included issues of correctional programming and staff absenteeism in the scope, and admitted expert evidence on programming.

The Divisional Court held that the challenge to the evidentiary ruling was premature.

On the scope issues, the Court found the Coroner's decision reasonable, as there was sufficient evidence to warrant considering whether programming and staffing were contributing factors to the deaths.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision awarding the respondent $15,270 in Charter damages for breaches of his s. 10(b) rights during a police detention.

The respondent had previously been granted a stay of criminal proceedings for the same breaches.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to properly apply the Ward test for Charter damages.

The Court held that the stay of proceedings adequately served the functions of vindication and deterrence, and that an award of damages was not an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of three interlocutory decisions made by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice in a criminal proceeding.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, raising concerns that the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process because the court lacks jurisdiction over criminal matters.

The court dismissed the motion, confirming that its judicial review powers under the Judicial Review Procedure Act do not extend to criminal orders, which fall under federal jurisdiction and the Criminal Code.

The court declined to make an order restricting the applicant's access to the courts at this time.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, which confirmed the Ottawa Chief of Police's findings regarding her complaint against three officers during the February 2022 'Freedom Convoy'.

The officers had directed the applicant to leave a secured area, cautioned her about arrest, and briefly seized her phone while she was filming them.

The Director upheld the finding that the brief seizure was minor misconduct, but that the officers had lawful authority under the Emergency Measures Regulations to direct her to leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, concluding that the Director's decision was reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) upholding the dismissal of his complaints against seven police officers.

The complaints alleged police misconduct related to investigations of conflicts arising from a family law dispute, including recording an incorrect witness name, failing to meet disclosure obligations, and failing to enforce COVID-19 protocols.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers acted in good faith and within their discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) confirming the Ottawa Police Service's conclusion that his complaint against several officers was unsubstantiated.

The applicant had been arrested for animal cruelty after leaving his dog in a hot vehicle.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard and found that the OIPRD's decision was transparent, intelligible, and justified.

The court held that the investigating officers had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and exercised their discretion lawfully.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with no costs.

The Attorney General appealed an order requiring the production of an entire Crown brief from an ongoing criminal prosecution for use in a pending child protection case.

The motion judge had ordered broad disclosure because the Crown's Wagg Unit requested an indefinite adjournment to review the brief, which would have delayed the child protection trial.

On appeal, the parties reached a consent resolution requiring immediate production of the child's video statement and other witness statements, while giving the Crown 30 days to screen the remainder of the brief.

The Divisional Court approved the resolution and emphasized that a 24-week delay for Wagg vetting is unacceptable in child protection cases, which must be prioritized.

The applicant sought judicial review of four Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions that denied his appeals and reconsideration requests regarding the impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded twice after the applicant drove while his license was suspended for impaired driving convictions.

The Divisional Court found no procedural unfairness and held that the Tribunal's decisions, including its findings on exceptional hardship and the non-retroactive effect of a criminal driving prohibition stay, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 applicant, a police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding a finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrest of a videographer during the G20 summit.

The applicant argued the Commission erred in its standard of review and that the Hearing Officer's reasons were inadequate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded the reasons were adequate for appellate review and that the finding of misconduct was reasonable given the lack of good and sufficient cause for the arrest.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of neglect of duty for delaying a detainee's right to counsel for 90 minutes after the initial justification for the delay (officer safety) had passed.

The Hearing Officer imposed a reprimand, but the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services substituted a six-month reduction in rank.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Commission's decision unreasonable, as it failed to consider mitigating factors and wrongly concluded that a reprimand was an unavailable penalty for a Charter breach.

The appeal was allowed and the reprimand restored.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upholding a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent police officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct.

The appellant alleged the officer breached his Charter rights by administering a breath test without proper caution after the appellant was evicted from a park.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the Hearing Officer to conclude the breath test was voluntary and the officer's actions in ensuring the safety of the campers and the public did not constitute discreditable conduct.

The applicants, police officers facing criminal charges, brought a motion for a publication ban and a sealing order regarding a confidential report by the Chief of Police.

The report was filed in support of an application for leave to serve notices of hearing under the Police Services Act.

The applicants argued that media access to the report would prejudice their right to a fair trial and risk witness tainting.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a serious risk to the administration of justice, as the report was general in nature and alternative measures like challenges for cause were available.

The moving defendant, an assistant Crown Attorney, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for summary judgment in a malicious prosecution action.

The plaintiff had been charged with murder, but the charges were withdrawn after new evidence surfaced implicating another individual.

The motion judge found that while reasonable and probable grounds existed initially, there were disputed facts regarding the reasonableness of continuing the prosecution after the new evidence emerged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflict of principle or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The applicant, an inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Complex, sought judicial review of a decision finding him guilty of assaulting another inmate and imposing a penalty of 10 days in segregation.

He argued the process was procedurally unfair and that the disciplinary system violated section 7 of the Charter due to institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was treated fairly, as he was informed of the charge, offered counsel, and given the opportunity to question his accuser and call witnesses, which he declined.

The Court also declined to decide the Charter issue, noting the lack of an evidentiary record to support the claim of institutional bias.

Following his conviction for assaulting his wife, the requester sought access to the Crown brief and related documents under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Ministry denied access under the solicitor-client exemption in s. 19 of the Act.

The adjudicator ordered disclosure, finding that the exemption under the second branch of s. 19 terminated when the litigation ended and that privilege was waived for documents disclosed to defence counsel.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, holding that the statutory exemption in s. 19 does not terminate with the litigation and is not waived by the Crown's mandatory Stinchcombe disclosure.

The appellant resort appealed a Board decision suspending its liquor licence for seven days for allegedly serving an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Board's decision.

The Court found no evidence that the appellant's employees supplied liquor to the intoxicated patron, noting the drinks were ordered by another guest.

Furthermore, the Court held the Board failed to properly interpret 'permitted drunkenness', as the appellant's staff had taken reasonable steps to deny service and remove the patron shortly after her arrival.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting a non-suit and dismissing his claims for false arrest, unlawful search, and Charter breaches against the police.

The appellant had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after police observed him with multiple bicycles and parts late at night.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant's own evidence established the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, meaning no prima facie case was made out.

The respondent's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesman was revoked due to odometer tampering.

He later re-applied for registration, but the Registrar proposed to refuse the application based on his past misconduct, including criminal fraud convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal restored his registration, accepting his argument that the fraud was due to bad paperwork and a dishonest employee.

The Registrar appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred fundamentally by allowing the respondent to relitigate the essential element of criminal intent from his fraud convictions.

The Tribunal's decision was set aside and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was restored.

The Crown brought a motion to introduce evidence of the accused's discreditable conduct in a trial for sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

The proposed evidence involved prior incidents with the complainant, and a subsequent incident with a second complainant.

Applying the Handy framework, the court admitted the prior evidence involving the complainant, finding it highly probative of consent and animus, but excluded specific inflammatory details.

The court excluded the evidence involving the second complainant, concluding that despite its striking similarities, its highly inflammatory nature and prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.