Peter A. Daley

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The Crown brought an application during a criminal fraud prosecution seeking admission of a spreadsheet summary prepared by a police investigator analyzing drug purchase and billing records.

The spreadsheet relied on information from Ministry of Health databases and records obtained from a pharmaceutical wholesaler.

The court held that the Crown failed to establish that the underlying documents constituted admissible business records under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act or at common law.

Because the source documents themselves were inadmissible, the summary derived from them could not be admitted.

The court also expressed serious concerns regarding the reliability and completeness of the underlying data sources.

In a fraud prosecution alleging billing of the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan for drugs not dispensed, the Crown sought a pre‑trial ruling admitting “prescriber verification letters” completed by physicians during a government audit.

The Crown argued the documents were admissible as business records under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act or under the principled hearsay exception.

The court found the letters were not business records because they were not created or maintained in the ordinary course of medical practice and were prepared during an investigation.

Reliability concerns also arose from physicians’ testimony that their answers may have been influenced by memory gaps or investigator comments.

The court held the principled hearsay exception was not satisfied because reliability and necessity were not established.

The accused were tried before a judge alone on charges arising from a large-scale cocaine importation scheme involving approximately 112 kilograms of cocaine shipped from Guyana to Canada in a sea container.

The Crown alleged conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, relying on surveillance, intercepted communications, controlled delivery evidence, and admissions.

The court found that two of the accused knowingly participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine and later exercised possession of the drugs for trafficking purposes, based largely on circumstantial evidence and intercepted communications demonstrating knowledge, control, and shared financial interest in the shipment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence that any accused actually committed the offence of importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because their involvement occurred after the drugs entered Canada.

Two accused were acquitted entirely due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge and participation.

A private elector brought a motion for an interim and interlocutory injunction restraining a municipal councillor from attending or voting at city council meetings pending an application challenging the validity of the councillor’s election on residency grounds.

The court applied the three‑part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR‑MacDonald and found that although there was a serious question to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The court also held that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the councillor to continue performing his duties, particularly given the public interest in municipal governance.

The requested injunction would effectively grant the ultimate relief sought prior to adjudication on the merits.

The defendant credit union brought a motion to transfer a civil action from Brampton to the Commercial List in Toronto.

The plaintiff opposed the transfer, asserting prejudice arising from medical limitations and arguing that the underlying events occurred in the Region of Peel.

Applying the holistic factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the dispute was closely connected to prior receivership proceedings involving the corporate defendant that had been extensively managed on the Commercial List in Toronto.

The court also found no persuasive medical evidence establishing that the plaintiff could not travel to Toronto to litigate the matter.

Considering the location of relevant events, witnesses, subject matter, and the benefits of specialized case management, the court concluded that Toronto was a significantly better venue.

The applicant sought an interim and interlocutory injunction restraining a municipal councillor from attending or voting at meetings of a city council.

The motion arose in the context of a dispute involving the councillor’s participation in municipal governance.

The court declined to grant the requested equitable relief.

The motion for injunctive relief was dismissed, with directions for the parties to provide written submissions on costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking court approval of a consent judgment dismissing a medical negligence action without costs on behalf of a party under disability.

The action alleged negligent failure by a physician to diagnose a hip dislocation in a patient with severe cerebral palsy.

Although expert reports commissioned by the plaintiffs suggested a breach of the standard of care, the litigation guardian sought dismissal due to concern about potential adverse costs if the action failed at trial.

The court held that the proposed dismissal was not in the best interests of the person under disability and that the litigation guardian’s personal exposure to costs created a conflict of interest.

The court removed the litigation guardian and substituted the Public Guardian and Trustee, adjourning the motion pending further investigation.

During a continued pretrial in a civil action involving multiple defendants in an equipment-related dispute, the parties were unable to reach resolution.

The court addressed scheduling concerns for an anticipated lengthy jury trial estimated to take six to eight weeks.

The matter was removed from the May 2016 blitz sittings, and the case management judge indicated that a trial date would be fixed, potentially in another judicial region to accommodate the extended duration.

Directions were also provided regarding pretrial motions, preparation of joint document books, and submission of proposed jury questions in advance of the pretrial motions.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The claims arose from a mortgage enforcement and eviction following default on mortgages registered against a property owned by the plaintiff’s spouse.

Prior court and Landlord and Tenant Board determinations had already found that the plaintiff had neither ownership nor tenancy rights in the property and that the eviction was lawful.

The court held that the amended statement of claim contained unintelligible allegations, lacked standing, and attempted to re‑litigate issues already determined.

Applying Rule 2.1.01, the court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and summarily dismissed the claims against the moving defendants.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault and choking arising from a violent attack by a former intimate partner in the complainant's home, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of five years.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount, found the sexual assault especially violent, and concluded the offender posed a risk of reoffending with little demonstrated insight or rehabilitative motivation.

Applying the totality principle, the court held the choking was part and parcel of the sexual assault and ordered concurrent sentences.

The court also determined credit for multiple periods of presentence custody and house arrest, resulting in total credit of 1362 days, and imposed ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, and no-contact orders.

This corrigendum corrected an earlier family law endorsement released on a motion by the applicant.

The court held that part of the earlier endorsement had been made in error and did not accord with the form of order actually signed.

Pursuant to Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules, the court amended paragraph 11 by deleting wording that stated the respondent was incapable of managing her property.

The court further clarified that it had made no determination of incapacity within the meaning of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, and confirmed that the signed order remained in full force and effect.

Sentencing decision following a jury conviction for dangerous driving causing bodily injury arising from a signalized-intersection collision in which the victim sustained traumatic brain injuries and other serious lasting impairments.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence based on alleged aggravating facts including racing, extreme speed, and dangerous lane manoeuvres.

The court held that only one aggravating fact was proven beyond a reasonable doubt: the offender was travelling well above the posted 50 km/h limit, up to 80 km/h, but not at 110 km/h or more, and the evidence did not establish racing or the other alleged manoeuvres.

Applying proportionality, denunciation, and general deterrence, while recognizing some reduction in culpability because the victim turned left across the offender's path, the court imposed 9 months' imprisonment, a 3-year driving prohibition, and firearms prohibitions, but declined to order DNA.

The court addressed scheduling for expedited civil actions that had not been reached during the January 2015 civil blitz sittings.

Defence counsel sought appointment of a case management judge, while the court required submissions on fixing a trial date in light of the age of the actions and an earlier expedited trial order.

The court held that the matters should proceed before the same judge on a fixed three-week trial commencing November 30, 2015.

Plaintiff's counsel was required to reassign or adjourn other matters if necessary.

East Durham Wind, LP moved to be added as a party or intervener in an application for judicial review concerning a Renewable Energy Approval for its wind project.

The applicant opposed the motion, while the respondent Ministry consented.

The court granted East Durham Wind party intervener status under Rule 13.01, finding it had a direct economic interest and could make a useful contribution.

The court also granted the moving party's request to conditionally transfer the proceeding from Brampton to Toronto to facilitate an expedited hearing before the scheduled start of project construction.

The appellant moved to transfer a residential tenancy appeal from Brampton to Toronto and to expedite the hearing due to the appellant's terminal illness.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing inconvenience and unfairness.

The court granted the motion, finding that the uncontradicted evidence of the appellant's terminal cancer made the transfer and expedition desirable in the interests of justice, and that the respondents failed to demonstrate any resulting unfairness or inconvenience.

Two offenders were sentenced following convictions for fraud over $5,000 under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code arising from a scheme that defrauded victims of $100,000 through a purported land development investment.

The court considered aggravating factors including the significant planning of the fraud, the vulnerability of the victims, and the serious financial and emotional harm caused.

While the Crown sought penitentiary terms of three to four years, the court concluded that the case fell below the range of large‑scale fraud and that conditional sentences could adequately satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

Both offenders were sentenced to conditional sentences of two years less a day with strict house arrest conditions, followed by probation.

The court also imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture and a joint and several restitution order of $100,000 in favour of the victims.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings after pleading guilty to assault against his spouse, breach of recognizance, and theft under $5000.

He sought to withdraw the guilty pleas and obtain a new trial, alleging the pleas were not voluntary and asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court reviewed the legal requirements for valid guilty pleas under s. 606 of the Criminal Code and the framework governing claims of ineffective representation.

It found the appellant’s evidence unreliable and determined the pleas were voluntary, informed, and unequivocal.

The court also concluded that counsel’s performance was competent and that no prejudice or miscarriage of justice occurred.

During case management conferences, the court addressed scheduling issues in a civil action where the anticipated trial length had increased from four days to eight to ten days.

The previously scheduled trial date was vacated as it could no longer accommodate the expanded timeframe.

The matter was directed to be placed on the January 2015 blitz trial list.

The court also addressed a submission that the trial had been marked peremptory to the plaintiff but noted no such order appeared on the record and invited counsel to bring any such order forward.

Counsel were directed to deliver an amended timetable reflecting the parties’ agreement.

A unionized employee commenced a civil action alleging wrongful dismissal and seeking damages related to employment termination and retiree health benefits under a voluntary separation package and a related retiree benefits program.

The employer moved under Rule 21 to dismiss the action on the basis that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitration under s. 48 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employee sought leave to file a fresh as amended statement of claim focusing on entitlement to benefits under a retiree health benefits program.

Applying the Weber framework, the court held that the essential character of the dispute arose from the employment relationship governed by a collective agreement.

Because the claims were fundamentally employment-related and already the subject of a grievance process, the court lacked jurisdiction and the action had to proceed through labour arbitration.