Owen Rees

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual assault by choking, and assault with a weapon.

The sexual assault charges related to allegations by his former spouse, while the assault with a weapon charge related to the accused spanking his daughter with a Birkenstock sandal.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found a reasonable doubt on the sexual assault charges and acquitted the accused.

However, the court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon, concluding that the use of the sandal was unreasonable and not protected by the corrective force exemption under section 43 of the Criminal Code.

The offender was convicted of multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault and sexual interference, against his intimate partner's young daughter over a two-year period.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 12 to 14 years, while the defence proposed 7 years.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust, the young age of the victim, and the severe psychological harm caused.

After weighing the aggravating factors, including uncharged conduct of making child pornography, against the offender's lack of a criminal record and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the court imposed a sentence of 11 years' imprisonment, less credit for time served.

The court also imposed a lifetime SOIRA order and 15-year prohibition orders under s. 161 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his application for a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator's reasons were inadequate, conclusory, and failed to account for extensive expert medical evidence regarding the appellant's traumatic brain injury.

The court held that the adjudicator made factual findings without evidentiary support, particularly regarding the appellant's volunteer activities.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of an adjudication determination made by an adjudicator in an Ontario Dispute Adjudication of Construction Contractors case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of B. MacFarlane J. dated September 9, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to bring an application for judicial review of a determination made by an adjudicator under the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contractors (ODACC).

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint as abandoned after his counsel failed to attend a case management conference, and a subsequent decision denying reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's refusal to reconsider reasonable given an unexplained nine-month delay by counsel after learning of the dismissal.

The court also declined to extend the time to review the original dismissal decision due to the unexplained delay and the availability of the reconsideration process as an adequate alternative remedy.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two prior orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,313.06.

The accused, having been found guilty of sexual offences against a minor, applied to reopen the trial prior to sentencing based on fresh evidence from a pre-sentence report.

The proposed evidence suggested the complainant had attempted to access a pornography website months after her police interview.

The court first considered the admissibility of this evidence under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the s. 276 application, finding the evidence lacked relevance and did not provide an alternative explanation for the complainant's detailed knowledge of sexual activity.

The court further held that even if admissible, the application to reopen the trial would be dismissed as the evidence could not reasonably be expected to affect the verdict.

The moving parties sought to recognize and enforce an interlocutory Mareva injunction issued by the Quebec Superior Court against the responding parties in Ontario, and to appoint an interlocutory receiver over two Ontario hydroelectric companies owned by the individual respondent.

The court held that interprovincial interlocutory Mareva injunctions can be recognized and enforced, relaxing the traditional finality requirement for foreign non-monetary orders.

The court recognized and enforced the Quebec Mareva Order, subject to an allowance for ordinary business expenses, but declined to appoint a receiver as it was disproportionate and unnecessary.

The accused was tried on one count of sexual assault alleging repeated sexual abuse of his daughter over many years.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the criminal standard of proof, the court found the defence evidence credible on key points and accepted the evidence of the accused's spouse as reliable and credible.

The court identified significant contradictions between the complainant's account and the accepted defence evidence concerning a hotel incident, the household bedtime routine, and an alleged discovery of pornography on an old phone.

Considering the totality of the evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and entered an acquittal.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for the sale of a jointly-held cottage under the Partition Act and dismissal of the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff alleged two oral contracts — one to refrain from selling the cottage before 2033 and another regarding a time-sharing schedule — as well as tortious interference with his use and enjoyment of the property.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence of oral agreements unpersuasive and unsupported, held that no action in nuisance could lie between joint tenants on jointly-held land, and determined that the alleged interferences were trivial.

Summary judgment was granted directing the sale of the cottage, the plaintiff's action was dismissed, and partial indemnity costs of $49,420.35 were awarded to the moving party.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault against his former spouse, including two counts alleged to have occurred entirely in Alberta and Quebec.

At the outset of the trial, the defence brought an application to quash or dismiss those two counts for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Crown argued there was a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on the ongoing relationship, cross-count assaults, and the psychological effects suffered by the complainant in Ontario.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding no elements of the offences occurred in Ontario and the effects-based analysis did not apply.

The two out-of-province counts were stayed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had concluded that his transitory ankle injury was not a disability under the Human Rights Code and applied a balance of probabilities standard to its jurisdictional screening.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Tribunal engaged in an impermissible merits review rather than a jurisdictional analysis.

The court held it was unreasonable for the Tribunal to depart from the 'plain and obvious' standard for jurisdictional screening and to fail to apply a multidimensional, socio-political analysis to the definition of disability.

The plaintiffs moved for a status hearing to extend the deadline to set their complex construction action down for trial.

The defendant DeMarco Construction opposed, arguing the delay was inexcusable and caused prejudice due to the death of its primary witness.

The court found the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing health issues and difficulties scheduling mediation.

The court also held that the prejudice from the witness's death was not attributable to the plaintiffs' delay and was attenuated by the availability of discovery transcripts and documentary evidence.

The motion to extend the deadline was granted.

Following the dismissal of two dependent's relief applications against an insolvent estate, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful applicants.

The court allocated the estate's costs between the two applications.

Joanne Sebanc was ordered to pay $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis, recognizing her mixed success and limited ability to pay.

Roseanne, Daniel, and Natalie Sebanc were ordered to pay $30,000 on a substantial indemnity basis because they pursued baseless allegations of fraud and failed to accept a favourable offer to settle.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction due to a lack of legal capacity to sue, the responding First Nation sought costs of $40,510.34 on a partial indemnity basis.

The individual who brought the proceeding on behalf of the applicant accepted personal liability for costs but argued the quantum was excessive.

The court found the hours claimed by the responding First Nation were disproportionate to the complexity of the issues, which were primarily procedural.

The court fixed costs at $18,000 all inclusive, payable by the individual personally.

Le requérant a demandé des ordonnances de conformité en vertu de l’article 134 de la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums concernant des locations à court terme, une caméra installée sans autorisation sur un élément commun, et des comportements allégués comme harcelants et nuisibles à la jouissance paisible.

Le tribunal a conclu à des violations répétées des règles et du règlement sur les locations à court terme, ainsi qu’à une contravention de l’article 98 pour la caméra.

Le tribunal a aussi conclu à des comportements harcelants et à des actes nuisant au confort et à la jouissance paisible des autres copropriétaires.

Une ordonnance a été signée avec modifications et des dépens partiels de 18 000 $ ont été accordés au requérant.