Philip Wright

The accused, an OPP officer, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for showing preferential treatment to a specific tow truck operator when dispatching tows for stunt driving impounds.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized the need for general deterrence and denunciation given the accused's position of trust and the deliberate nature of the offence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, finding that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest.

This endorsement addresses two applications for leave to intervene in a criminal appeal from conviction, brought by the Canadian Police Association, Toronto Police Association, and Police Association of Ontario.

The underlying appeal concerns a police officer convicted of criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide necessaries of life to an intoxicated individual.

The court granted intervener status, finding that the associations had a substantial interest and could offer useful perspectives on legal issues such as the standard of care for police officers, the relevance of mistake of fact in objective liability offences, and the need for expert evidence on professional standards, provided they confined their submissions to legal arguments and avoided the merits of the appeal.

The plaintiff sought leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property based on an alleged joint venture agreement.

The defendants opposed, claiming the agreement was fabricated and signatures were forged, and brought a cross-motion to discharge a caution the plaintiff had registered on title.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiff's interest in the land and that the equities, including the uniqueness of the property, favoured granting the CPL.

However, the court granted the cross-motion to discharge the caution because it had been registered indefinitely in violation of the Land Titles Act requirements.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four counts relating to operating an electrical contracting business without a valid license and failing to file inspection applications.

The trial proceeded in the appellant's absence.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in law by admitting: (1) statements made by the appellant to an investigator without a voir dire on voluntariness and whether the investigator was a person in authority; (2) business records from the Electrical Safety Association without compliance with hearsay exceptions; and (3) evidence regarding identification was properly admitted.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial with the appellant required to appear in person.

The court also commented critically on the sentencing decision, noting the trial judge imposed imprisonment beyond what the Crown requested without proper justification or notice to the absent defendant.

A sentencing appeal concerning whether a justice of the peace has jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil and hold a sole shareholder and directing mind personally liable for corporate fines.

The defendant corporation pleaded guilty to three charges under the Electricity Act arising from unsafe electrical work that resulted in a death.

The trial judge imposed fines of $430,000 but declined to pierce the corporate veil, finding she lacked jurisdiction.

The Crown appealed, arguing the defendant had improperly transferred corporate assets to himself and a new corporation to shield them from liability.

The appellate court found that justices of the peace do possess implied jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil in appropriate circumstances and that the test was satisfied on these facts.

The Electrical Safety Authority sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a sentencing decision by Justice of the Peace Moses.

The ESA's notice of appeal was filed outside the statutory appeal period.

The central issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil to impose consequences on the company's principal and his new enterprise, given that the company's negligent electrical work resulted in the death of an elderly man.

The court granted the extension, finding that the ESA demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, acted diligently in pursuing the appeal, and that the proposed appeal had sufficient arguable merit.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff appealed a master's order striking portions of his statement of claim that referenced information and documents arising from a police public complaint investigation.

The defendants cross‑appealed the refusal to strike additional paragraphs and the decision not to award costs.

The court held that sections 83 and 95 of the Police Services Act render information and documents generated through the public complaints process privileged and inadmissible in civil proceedings.

The master correctly applied the statutory confidentiality provisions and relevant authority in striking the impugned allegations while allowing certain contextual paragraphs to remain.

Both the appeal and cross‑appeal were dismissed.