R. Dan Cornell

Following guilty pleas to sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of a prohibition order, the Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had a history of sexual offences against children, including prior convictions and repeated conduct demonstrating a pattern of sexual violence against minors.

Expert psychiatric evidence diagnosed pedophilia and antisocial personality traits, with actuarial assessments indicating a moderate‑high to high risk of sexual recidivism.

The court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by long‑term supervision would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed after the offender was declared a dangerous offender.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought a defamation action against a conservation officer and the Crown after the officer left a voicemail for the plaintiff's client stating that the plaintiff was 'pretty much incompetent' and had 'mishandled grossly' the client's case.

The defendants conceded the statement was defamatory but argued the defence of qualified privilege.

The court found that the officer did not have a moral duty to make the call, and thus the occasion was not protected by qualified privilege.

Furthermore, even if privilege applied, the officer exceeded its scope by making gratuitous comments about the plaintiff's competence.

The court awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a three‑year‑old child occurring during overnight visits at a residence where the accused lived.

The child provided spontaneous disclosures to her mother and later gave a video‑recorded statement admitted under s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge assessed credibility under the principles in R. v. W.(D.) and related jurisprudence, finding the child’s evidence cogent, detailed, and consistent despite minor inconsistencies on collateral matters.

Similar act evidence from another conviction involving comparable conduct toward a young child was admitted to demonstrate situational propensity and reduce the likelihood of coincidence.

The court rejected the accused’s denial and found the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a divorce proceeding, the respondent spouse sought a lump‑sum spousal support award to be satisfied through division of the applicant’s pension after the applicant’s post‑separation bankruptcy eliminated any potential equalization payment.

The court held that an equalization claim constitutes a provable debt in bankruptcy and is extinguished upon discharge unless the stay is lifted during the bankruptcy process.

The respondent had knowledge of the bankruptcy but failed to take timely steps to lift the stay and therefore could not indirectly pursue equalization through a lump‑sum spousal support award.

The court rejected compensatory and unjust enrichment claims but awarded limited periodic spousal support due to economic hardship caused by joint debts addressed through a consumer proposal.

Support was ordered to commence when the applicant resumed employment or received long‑term disability benefits and to terminate on December 31, 2015.

In a criminal prosecution involving allegations of sexual assault against a child, the Crown sought to admit similar act evidence from a prior trial in which the accused had recently been convicted of comparable sexual offences involving another young complainant.

The defence argued the application should not proceed until appellate rights relating to the earlier conviction were exhausted and challenged the evidentiary basis for the application.

The court rejected the preliminary objection and held that the prior conviction and the trial judge’s reasons were admissible evidence on the similar fact voir dire.

Applying the governing principles from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court concluded that the similarities between the alleged acts—including the age of the complainants, the nature of the sexual acts, and the familial relationship—were highly probative and significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The similar act evidence was therefore admitted.

Application concerning retroactive and ongoing child support following changes to parenting arrangements that evolved into a hybrid shared‑custody regime.

The court applied the framework from Contino and the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine support where two children were in shared custody and one primarily resided with the applicant.

Considering the parties’ respective household incomes, the applicant’s remarriage, the respondent’s responsibility for section 7 expenses, and the goal of maintaining comparable standards of living in each household, the court departed from the table set‑off amount.

Ongoing support was fixed at $800 per month.

Retroactive support was limited to the years 2011‑2013 due to delay and hardship considerations, resulting in a modest balance owing together with arrears of section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought retroactive spousal support following separation, arguing the respondent failed to disclose a significant increase in income after securing temporary employment in 2012.

The court reviewed the governing principles for retroactive spousal support, including the recipient’s needs, the payor’s conduct, delay, and potential hardship, as articulated in appellate jurisprudence and the Supreme Court of Canada.

While the court criticized the respondent’s failure to provide timely financial disclosure and his reckless spending, it found the applicant’s modest needs had largely been met through various payments and living arrangements.

Given the respondent’s advanced age, lack of assets, and limited future income, a retroactive award would impose undue hardship.

The court therefore dismissed the claim for retroactive support but ordered ongoing spousal support consistent with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

In complex litigation arising from a MURB real estate investment and foreclosure action, investor defendants sought a preliminary determination that the development had never achieved a cash flow positive position before the foreclosure proceeding was commenced.

They argued that accounting adjustments relied upon by the developer improperly imputed notional rental income and altered expenses, which if rejected would demonstrate that the mortgage was never in default.

The court held that the competing accounting methodologies, contractual interpretation of the offering memorandum and cash flow guarantee, and disputed factual issues regarding market conditions, vacancies, and management could not be resolved summarily.

These matters required full examination through the reference previously ordered in the case management process.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for possession of child pornography, manufacturing child pornography, and making child pornography available through peer‑to‑peer file sharing software.

The evidence included numerous images and videos involving children, including images of the offender’s step‑daughter taken while she slept, and forensic evidence linking downloads and distribution to the offender’s computer and phone.

The court emphasized that denunciation and general deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives for offences involving the sexual exploitation of children under the Criminal Code.

Aggravating factors included breach of trust toward a step‑child, distribution through file‑sharing software, and the disturbing nature of the images.

The offender received a custodial sentence of two years less a day followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders including SOIRA registration, a DNA order, a s.161 prohibition order, and forfeiture of electronic devices.

The accused was sentenced following a conviction after trial for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and guilty pleas to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of breaching bail recognizance.

Police executing a search warrant located a loaded handgun in a bag belonging to the accused at a residence used as a base for drug trafficking.

While on bail for the firearms charge, the accused travelled to another city and was arrested with cocaine, multiple cell phones, cash, and a digital scale, breaching several bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for the dangerous combination of loaded firearms and drug trafficking, while considering the offender’s youth and lack of prior criminal record.

A global sentence of four and one‑half years’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for pre‑trial custody.

The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Racing Commission panel that found him guilty of animal abuse and imposed penalties including a 90-day suspension and a fine.

The panel had conducted a trial de novo following a previous successful judicial review by the applicant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the panel applied the correct standard of proof and that its decision, based on circumstantial evidence, was reasonable.

The plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action regarding a Multiple Unit Residential Building (MURB) investment scheme.

The investors, who had signed powers of attorney in favour of the developer, alleged financial manipulation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Given the complex financial history, the lack of proper accounting by the mortgagee, and the overlapping shareholder oppression claims, the case management judge directed a reference to determine the mortgage accounting and related issues.

The judge also ordered a stay of the foreclosure action and oppression applications pending the reference.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action following a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge found the plaintiff suffered a permanent serious impairment but dismissed the action because the plaintiff failed to provide independent evidence corroborating his change in function under s. 4.3(5) of O. Reg. 461/96.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 4.3(5) does not preclude a plaintiff from providing the corroborating evidence.

The court found that interpreting the provision to require independent corroboration would disproportionately impact vulnerable groups and be inconsistent with Charter equality values.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, arguing insufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons, lack of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, improper reversal of the Charter onus, and an impermissible inference from the accused’s failure to testify.

The court granted leave to argue sufficiency of reasons despite it not being raised in the notice of appeal.

Applying the framework from Sheppard and R.E.M., the court held that the trial judge’s reasons adequately explained the conviction and permitted meaningful appellate review.

The court further held that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the appellant’s condition and circumstances, and that the trial judge did not improperly shift the Charter burden or draw an impermissible inference from the accused’s silence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the City of Brampton's decision to remove his name from a priority list for a taxi plate licence.

The City removed the applicant after he failed to provide reliable documentation proving he met the ongoing eligibility requirement of driving a taxicab in Brampton for at least 24 hours a week for 40 weeks of the year.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the City's decision was justified, the by-law was valid, and the by-law officer did not fetter his discretion.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police found a handgun in his bag during a drug search of a residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of two witnesses with criminal records, who testified that the bag and gun belonged to the accused.

The accused denied knowledge of the gun.

Applying the W.(D.) principles and considering the Vetrovec warnings, the court rejected the accused's testimony, accepted the Crown witnesses as credible, and found the accused guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and attempting to choke the complainant during the assault.

The case turned largely on credibility, with conflicting accounts provided by the complainant and the accused.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court assessed plausibility, corroborative circumstances, injuries, and contemporaneous text messages.

The court found the complainant’s testimony credible and consistent with the surrounding evidence, including physical injuries and her immediate distress following the incident.

The accused’s evidence was rejected as implausible and inconsistent.

The Crown proved all three offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown brought a summary conviction appeal from a trial decision finding a breach of the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter and excluding breath sample evidence.

The trial judge had concluded that police failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate contact with the accused’s preferred lawyer before administering breath tests.

The appellate judge found that the officer had taken reasonable steps, including attempting to contact the lawyer and arranging for duty counsel while awaiting a callback.

The accused agreed to speak with whichever lawyer returned the call first and did not diligently pursue counsel of choice.

The appeal court concluded there was no s. 10(b) breach and further held that, even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) applying the framework in Grant.

The appellants appealed convictions for resisting arrest and assaulting peace officers following a police response to a 9‑1‑1 call reporting a domestic disturbance.

They argued the police lacked lawful authority to enter their apartment and used excessive force during the arrest.

The appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s credibility findings and the legal framework governing warrantless entry in response to emergency calls.

Applying the principles from R. v. Godoy, the court held that exigent circumstances justified police entry to ensure the safety of occupants.

The trial judge’s acceptance of the police evidence and findings that reasonable force was used disclosed no palpable and overriding error.

The accused brought an application under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code seeking severance of three counts of historic sexual offences involving two complainants who were sisters.

The accused argued that the counts lacked a sufficient factual nexus and that a joint trial would create moral and reasoning prejudice.

The court considered the severance factors outlined in R. v. Last, including prejudice to the accused, the legal and factual nexus between counts, complexity of evidence, multiplicity of proceedings, and the potential use of similar fact evidence.

The court found a sufficient factual and legal nexus between the allegations and determined the risk of prejudice was minimal in a judge-alone trial.

The accused failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the interests of justice required severance.