Phillip Millar

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay damages for sexually assaulting the respondent after administering the drug temazepam without her knowledge.

The appellant argued the trial judge ignored relevant evidence, provided insufficient reasons, and erred in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunne.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge conducted a thorough credibility assessment, provided extensive reasons capable of appellate review, and properly applied the rule in Browne v. Dunne because the appellant failed to put his version of events to the respondent during cross-examination.

The applicant, the Prime Minister of Canada, sought to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify at the criminal trial of the respondent, who was charged with assault with a weapon for throwing gravel at the applicant during a campaign event.

The court quashed the subpoena on three independent grounds: the respondent failed to show the applicant was likely to give material and necessary evidence; the subpoena was an abuse of process intended for political purposes rather than legal ones; and the applicant enjoyed absolute parliamentary privilege providing testimonial immunity while Parliament is in session.

The accused, charged with dangerous driving causing death after his commercial truck collided with a car, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings.

He alleged the Crown breached his section 7 rights by releasing the truck to its owner, thereby losing or destroying material evidence regarding the truck's weight and braking capacity.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the evidence was lost or destroyed, noting the defence had multiple opportunities to inspect the vehicle and had in fact obtained an expert report.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following the hospitalization of his two-month-old son with severe injuries, including multiple bone fractures and brain trauma.

The Crown relied on expert medical evidence to argue the injuries were inflicted by intentional force.

The defence presented competing expert testimony suggesting the injuries could have resulted from a stroke, infection, and metabolic bone disease.

The court found the defence experts raised a reasonable doubt regarding the cause of the injuries and acquitted the accused.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 18-month conditional sentence for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 10(b) Charter application regarding his right to counsel and misapprehended evidence in finding the complainant was unconscious and incapable of consenting.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant waived his right to counsel was supported by the evidence.

The court also held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, including the appellant's statement to police and witness testimony, to reasonably conclude the complainant was unconscious.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The defendant Department of National Defence moved for a stay of the plaintiff's action pursuant to s. 91(2) of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-Establishment and Compensation Act.

The plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted by a military officer during a pre-enlistment physical examination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not a member of the military at the time of the alleged assault and that her injuries were not aggravated by her subsequent brief military service.

Therefore, the statutory bar under s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act did not apply, and the action could proceed.