Paul Slansky

In a criminal appeal involving fraud convictions, the moving party sought additional non-privileged disclosure to support proposed fresh-evidence abuse-of-process claims.

Applying prior case-management directions and existing disclosure rulings, the court found no basis for further compelled production on the issues properly before it and dismissed the motion.

The plaintiff, a lawyer and board member of Villa Charities organizations, sued for defamation following publication of an article in Corriere Canadese criticizing the organizations' development proposal for a community centre site.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action under Ontario's anti-SLAPP provisions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the article addressed a matter of public interest, the plaintiff established substantial merit to the defamation claim and that the defendants had no valid defences.

The court found the statements were defamatory, referred to the plaintiff, and were published.

The defences of justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege all failed.

The court also found the harm to the plaintiff's professional reputation and personal well-being was sufficiently serious to outweigh the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The appellant, who was designated a dangerous offender and given an indeterminate sentence in 1988, appealed the dismissal of his application for habeas corpus.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the original sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to order a psychiatric remand under the Criminal Code and failed to invoke the Mental Health Act.

Furthermore, the sentencing judge erred by fettering his discretion when he concluded he had no choice but to impose the dangerous offender designation if statutory criteria were met.

The habeas corpus application was granted, the dangerous offender designation was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a fresh sentencing hearing.

The appellant, who pleaded guilty to second degree murder, indignity to human remains, and arson, sought to set aside his guilty plea.

He claimed he was unaware of the consequences of his plea, specifically his right to appeal a conviction if he had gone to trial, including challenging the voluntariness ruling of his police statement.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's fresh evidence on this point to be untrue and accepted the trial counsel's credible recollection that the appellant was indeed informed of his appeal rights.

The court concluded that the guilty plea was a strategic, voluntary, unequivocal, and informed decision, given the formidable Crown case.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of fraud, brought two motions related to his appeal: one for document production (dismissed as redundant) and another to appoint a special commissioner under s. 683(1)(e) of the Criminal Code to inquire into alleged email deletion by police and alteration of trial transcripts, seeking fresh evidence for a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions, finding no credible evidence to support the allegations of obstruction of justice or abuse of process, and that the proposed inquiry would not reasonably lead to admissible fresh evidence under the Shulman test.

Dr. Rochagné Kilian appealed a Superior Court order compelling her to comply with an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding alleged false COVID-19 vaccine exemption certificates.

Dr. Kilian had refused to provide patient records, citing confidentiality and challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of the College's demands and the statutory provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's decision that the scope of a s. 87 application (to compel compliance) is limited to determining if there was a breach of statutory obligations and if the information requested was within investigatory powers.

The Court reiterated the principle of non-interference in ongoing administrative processes, holding that constitutional challenges and arguments regarding the lawfulness of the investigation's initiation must first be raised before the College's Discipline Committee before seeking judicial review.

The appellants, a newspaper publisher and his company, appealed the dismissal of their defamation and other tort claims against city councillors, school trustees, and media entities under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The appellants had published articles critical of the Toronto Catholic District School Board's LGBTQ2S+ policies, using derogatory language.

The respondents, in turn, took action to have the City of Toronto cease advertising in the appellants' newspaper, alleging the articles promoted homophobia and transphobia.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the respondents' expressions related to a matter of public interest and that the appellants failed to show their claims had substantial merit or that the respondents had no valid defence (specifically, fair comment).

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the fair comment defence was viable, and that the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding freedom of expression and religious protection were without merit.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed.

This costs endorsement arises from a motion to add intervenors, which the court found was largely designed to delay an s. 87 application.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs.

The court ordered costs payable by the moving parties/proposed intervenors/appellants and Rochagné Killian on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the motion gave rise to significant unnecessary legal expenses and delay.

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.

This motion concerned a request for a stay pending appeal of a lower court's dismissal of an application for leave to intervene.

The underlying matter involved the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario seeking an order to compel Dr. Kilian to provide patient files related to COVID-19 vaccine exemptions.

The moving parties, anonymous patients of Dr. Kilian, argued their s. 8 Charter privacy rights would be violated without their intervention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried.

The court held that the expectation of privacy in medical records is lower in a regulatory context, as the primary purpose of such investigations is public protection, and existing confidentiality protections within the regulatory scheme are sufficient.

Mohamed Mahjoub, subject to a security certificate and deportation order, sought habeas corpus in the Superior Court to challenge the indefinite conditions of his release, arguing Charter breaches.

The Minister moved to stay the application, citing lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, the existence of an adequate appeal route and the comprehensive nature of the IRPA security certificate scheme (Peiroo exception).

The motion judge granted the stay.

Mahjoub appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the IRPA's security certificate review process, with its specialized Federal Court judges and special advocate system, constitutes a comprehensive and advantageous scheme for reviewing detention conditions, thus precluding habeas corpus, even though the motion judge erred regarding the adequacy of the appeal route.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the moving party defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued that the court should apply the appropriateness exception under s. 137.1(7) to award partial indemnity costs instead of the presumptive full indemnity costs.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments, finding no basis to depart from the full indemnity presumption, and awarded the defendants their costs on a full indemnity basis (and substantial indemnity for one defendant on a pro bono retainer), totaling over $383,000.

The plaintiffs, a newspaper publisher and his company, brought an action for defamation, misfeasance in public office, inducing breach of contract, and wrongful interference with economic relations against several city councillors, school board trustees, and a media company.

The action arose from statements made by the defendants criticizing articles published by the plaintiffs as homophobic and transphobic, and advocating for the cessation of city advertising in the plaintiffs' newspaper.

The defendants brought motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants' expressions related to matters of public interest.

While the defamation claim had substantial merit, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the other claims had merit, and failed to show that the defendants had no valid defences, including fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication.

Furthermore, the court found that the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression outweighed any harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Viraphone Savina Ackharath and Alea Sabira Baksh, who are charged with importing and conspiracy to import a controlled substance.

Ackharath challenged the admissibility of her statements, arguing a violation of her s. 9 Charter rights due to an arbitrary arrest without reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the Border Services Officer had objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, considering factors such as the accused being a travelling companion of someone arrested for smuggling, their origin from a known source country for controlled substances, and being flagged for secondary inspection.

Consequently, no s. 9 Charter breach was found.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if a breach had occurred, the admission of the statements would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter, given the non-serious nature of any potential breach and the minimal impact on the accused's rights, particularly as she was immediately advised of and given access to counsel.

The Crown's application for the admissibility of all statements was granted.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) sought an order compelling Dr. Rochagne Kilian to provide patient files related to COVID vaccine exemptions.

Anonymous patients (Proposed Intervenors) brought a motion to intervene as parties, arguing their privacy and Charter rights under sections 7 and 8, and the applicability of the O'Connor process.

Dr. Kilian supported the intervention, raising constitutional challenges to the CPSO's investigation powers.

The court reserved its decision on the intervention motion, finding that the "subject matter and scope of this Application" needed to be determined first, as there was significant dispute between the parties on this fundamental issue.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a defamation action.

The plaintiffs argued that the settlement required the defendants to post an apology on their homepage or make it searchable on their internal search facility, rather than just on a dedicated URL.

The court found the terms of the settlement clear and unambiguous, noting that the defendants had complied by posting the apology on a dedicated URL as agreed.

The court granted the motion, enforced the settlement, and dismissed the plaintiffs' actions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario adjourned a motion sine die in a criminal appeal.

The adjournment was requested and agreed upon by all counsel after the Toronto Police Service recovered additional emails that may be pertinent to the motion.

The court determined that the parties needed time to explore this new development, and any subsequent matters arising from the recovery should be addressed by the case management judge.

This is an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice finding the appellant in contempt of various court orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting that the appellant was clearly in contempt and failed to purge it despite numerous opportunities.

The appeal was dismissed, and the contempt sentence was ordered to run concurrently with any related criminal sentence.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant, Steven Forster, sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid to quash his 1988 warrant of committal as a dangerous offender and for immediate release, after over 31 years of imprisonment.

He alleged procedural and jurisdictional errors during his dangerous offender designation and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court first addressed the admissibility of Correctional Service Canada records and the Ministry of the Attorney General records, finding them admissible for context and relevance to the requested relief and public safety concerns.

The court then considered whether to decline jurisdiction based on alternative remedies or comprehensive review procedures, ultimately deciding it had jurisdiction as there was no statutory right of appeal for the dangerous offender designation based on procedural errors at the time.

The court found that the psychiatric remand was authorized, notice of the dangerous offender application was adequate and caused no prejudice, and the applicant was present during submissions.

While the sentencing judge erred in believing he lacked discretion in the dangerous offender designation, this error was deemed to have no practical effect on the outcome.

The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was also dismissed as the applicant failed to establish incompetence or resulting miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the application for habeas corpus was dismissed.

Following his conviction for 12 counts of fraud over $5000 related to a currency trading Ponzi scheme, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged abuse of process.

The accused argued there was improper coordination between the Crown, police, and civil counsel representing the defrauded investors.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The court held there was no evidence of improper coordination, that the disclosure of the Crown brief to civil litigants followed the proper Wagg screening process, and that there was no evidence Crown counsel co-authored an article with civil counsel.