P. Copeland

The appellant appealed a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder following guilty pleas to uttering threats.

He argued the plea inquiry was inadequate, that his pleas were irregular because he stated he was guilty of the acts but not of intention, and that the trial judge erred in finding guilt without an admission of the mental element.

The court held that the plea inquiry failed to ensure the accused understood the consequences of an NCRMD finding, including the possibility of involuntary detention under the Ontario Review Board.

The court also found the pleas were equivocal and not known to law because they denied the mental element of the offence.

As there was no valid admission of intention, the finding of guilt and resulting NCRMD verdict could not stand.

Two competing procedural motions arose in litigation concerning control of a corporate bank account following the separation of spouses involved in a family business.

The respondents sought leave to examine a bank employee whose interactions with the applicant were central to allegations about improper changes to corporate signing authority that resulted in the freezing of a corporate account.

The court held that the evidence was relevant and that any delay in seeking the examination resulted from prior counsel’s error, which should not prejudice the parties.

Leave was therefore granted to examine the bank employee.

The applicant’s motion to examine opposing counsel about the authenticity and delivery of a corporate requisition was found premature due to potential solicitor‑client privilege concerns and the availability of alternative avenues for obtaining the information.