Rafeena Bacchus

This case involves a motion for default judgment brought by the plaintiffs against the Crown (Ontario Ministry of Labour) following the death of Raymond Campeau in a mining accident.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence by Ministry of Labour inspectors for failing to ensure compliance with safety orders.

Ontario was noted in default after repeatedly failing to respond to the statement of claim and court orders.

The court found Ontario liable, ruling that the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, did not bar the action as it concerned the negligent operational implementation of a regulatory decision, not the decision itself.

Damages were assessed for loss of services, income, guidance, care, companionship, and pain and suffering.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offender was arrested on September 1, 2017, while on parole for a prior drug and firearm offence.

Police surveillance revealed the offender engaged in drug trafficking activity, resulting in the seizure of 13.95 grams of cocaine and $2,435 in cash.

The offender has an extensive criminal record involving multiple drug trafficking convictions and firearm offences.

The court imposed a sentence of 261 days imprisonment after crediting 189 days of pre-trial detention.

The court declined to credit time spent serving the prior sentence between arrest and warrant expiry.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime firearm prohibition, forfeiture of offence-related property, and a victim fine surcharge.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was barred by s. 267.6 of the Insurance Act because the plaintiff’s automobile insurance was retroactively voided by the insurer after the accident.

The court considered whether the plaintiff was contravening s. 2(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act at the time of the accident.

The evidence showed the vehicle was insured on the date of the collision and the insurer confirmed coverage shortly afterward before later voiding the policy retroactively.

The court held that the statutory bar applies only where the vehicle was uninsured at the time of the incident.

A retroactive voiding of insurance after the accident did not establish that the vehicle was uninsured at the relevant time.