Owen Wigderson

The appellant pleaded guilty to breaching non-communication and non-contact provisions of a recognizance and received a sentence that included a five-year weapons prohibition order on joint submission.

He later appealed the weapons prohibition order, arguing his conduct did not constitute a threat of violence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the appellant's persistent conduct toward his former wife amounted to implied threats of violence.

The applicant brought an application to quash an order of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that granted intervenor status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario in two stay motions.

The stay motions were based on allegations of witness tampering by an LCBO employee.

The Divisional Court held that the Board's decision to grant intervenor status was incorrect, as the LCBO had no interest in the stay motions and its intervention would distort the adversarial process.

The order granting standing to the LCBO was quashed.

The applicants sought judicial review of orders made by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario directing that a hearing proceed in camera and restricting the attendance of counsel for interested persons.

The Divisional Court quashed the orders, emphasizing that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the common law strongly favour open hearings.

The Court found that the Board failed to consider less restrictive measures to address its concerns regarding the presence of counsel while witnesses were excluded.

The appellant appealed his convictions for conspiracy to commit possession of stolen property and fraud.

He argued the trial judge erred by reading an unconstitutional evidentiary presumption from s. 354(2) of the Criminal Code to the jury, failing to adequately caution the jury on post-offence conduct of a co-accused, and that Crown counsel improperly cross-examined him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge erred in reading the full text of s. 354(2), it caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The court also found the jury charge as a whole was adequate and the cross-examination did not render the trial unfair.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal decision upholding a sexual assault conviction.

The only issue was whether the defence should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant about a prior sexual assault complaint made against another person.

Applying the rule that such collateral cross-examination is unavailable absent proof that the earlier complaint was recanted or demonstrably false, the court held the summary conviction appeal judge correctly found no basis to interfere.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.