Robert E. Charney

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff in the agreed-upon amount of $3,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Corthorn J. dated May 10, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding physicians and hospital.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated May 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 22, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $7,500.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay $23,054.10 in rent and compensation to the respondent landlords.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness because the Board refused her last-minute request for an adjournment on the basis of a religious holiday.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness.

The court noted the appellant failed to provide timely notice of the conflict, did not comply with the Board's rules for adjournment requests, and had previously failed to comply with conditions attached to a prior adjournment.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against a minor and drug trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude statements made to police and evidence seized from his home.

The accused had called 911 to report a break and enter, leading police to discover a distraught minor who made allegations against him.

The court found the accused was not initially detained during the preliminary investigation, but his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached when an officer had him sign a written statement knowing an arrest was imminent.

The court excluded the signed statement under s. 24(2) but admitted the prior oral statements and evidence obtained via search warrants, finding no s. 8 breaches.

The applicant father brought a motion for a temporary week-about shared parenting schedule for the parties' six-year-old child during the summer months.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing for the continuation of the status quo of three weekends per month.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that a shared parenting schedule during the summer was in the child's best interests and consistent with the maximum contact principle, as it would not interfere with the child's school schedule and would reduce transitions.

The court declined to reduce the father's child support obligations for the two-month period.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a Notice of Appeal from three interlocutory orders regarding his application to construct a religious memorial on his mother's grave.

The Divisional Court reviewed the Notice of Appeal under Rule 2.1.01 and struck it out as an abuse of process, noting that the orders were interlocutory and required leave to appeal, and that the appellant had failed to obtain leave to proceed under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The offender, a 20-year-old mid-level trafficker, was convicted of possessing fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Crown sought an 11.5-year global sentence, while the defence sought 6 to 8.5 years.

The court emphasized the extreme danger of fentanyl and loaded handguns, imposing consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm offences.

After applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 9 years and 9 months (117 months), less credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing to compel the defendants to produce documentation obtained from non-parties pursuant to a prior court order.

The defendants responded that they had not yet received any documents from the non-parties and agreed to provide them to the plaintiffs in due course once received.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion as premature, without prejudice to their right to bring it back if the defendants fail to produce the documents after receiving them.

The accused was tried on multiple sexual assault-related counts involving three complainants, including allegations arising from a blindfolded Play-Doh game, requests to untie swim trunks, and a truth or dare game.

The court refused the Crown’s cross-count similar fact evidence application, holding that the incidents lacked sufficient similarity and had very limited probative value.

Applying the criminal standard of proof, the court found material inconsistencies, memory frailties, and alternative reasonable inferences that prevented the Crown from proving the acts and sexual purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence relating to the final incident was found so unreliable that it would be unsafe to convict.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The plaintiffs brought an ex parte request to reconsider a previous order that required them to give notice to the defendants of their motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The plaintiffs argued that circumstances had changed, making an ex parte motion necessary.

The court dismissed the request, finding no significant change in circumstances and noting that the plaintiffs' delay in bringing the motion on notice undermined their claim of urgency.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender, was convicted of multiple offences including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and flight from police.

After conviction, the offender cut his ankle bracelet and absconded, leading the court to proceed with sentencing in his absence.

The court applied the jump and totality principles, noting the offender's lengthy record and the serious danger posed by loaded handguns in public, ultimately imposing a global sentence of 15 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential townhome.

The defendant failed to file responding materials and his request for an adjournment was denied as a delay tactic.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant breached the agreement by failing to pay the balance due on closing.

Summary judgment was granted, allowing the plaintiff to retain the deposit and awarding damages for the loss of bargain and carrying costs, plus partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction and 12-month sentence for sexual assault against his employee.

He argued the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) framework by relying on R. v. J.J.R.D. to reject his evidence without identifying material flaws, effectively turning the trial into a credibility contest.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the burden of proof, provided sufficient reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence, and properly rejected the appellant's evidence based on a considered acceptance of the Crown's case.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the 12-month term was fit given the aggravating factors, including the appellant's position of authority.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to refuse to reserve the name 'Direct Democracy Party of Canada' for the upcoming provincial election.

The respondent had rejected the name on the basis that it was likely to cause confusion with another registered party, but failed to provide written reasons.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, holding that the Election Finances Act requires written reasons when a party name is deemed unregistrable.

The impugned decisions were quashed and remitted back to the respondent for a decision with reasons.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion under Rules 30.10 and 31.10 for production of documents and examination for discovery from certain non-party corporations and individuals.

The information sought related to the deceased plaintiff's past and future dependency loss claims, which exceeded $5,000,000.

The court granted the request for production of specific financial and corporate documents from the non-party entities, finding it necessary to avoid trial unfairness given the plaintiffs' reliance on this information for their expert report.

However, the motion for leave to examine the non-party individuals was dismissed as premature, with leave to renew if the produced documents proved insufficient.

The accused was stopped by police who claimed to be conducting a random sobriety check.

During the stop, officers smelled burnt cannabis and informed the occupants they would be searched under the Cannabis Control Act.

The accused then fled in his vehicle, striking an officer, and was arrested shortly after.

A loaded handgun, drugs, and ammunition were recovered.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights, and seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found that the initial stop was an unlawful pretext stop violating s. 9, and that his s. 10(b) rights were briefly violated.

However, the court upheld the constitutionality of the warrantless search provisions under s. 12 of the Cannabis Control Act and rejected allegations of racial profiling.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) given the serious nature of the offences and the limited impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests due to his flight.

This ruling addresses several pre-trial applications in a criminal case where the accused, H.H., is charged with procuring a minor for sexual services and other sex trade related offences.

The Crown sought to admit the complainant's video statement under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and the accused's statement, arguing its voluntariness.

The accused sought to adduce Instagram photos under s. 278.93 and cross-examine the complainant on prior sexual activity under s. 276.

The court granted the Crown's s. 715.1 application by consent and found the accused's statement voluntary, admitting it into evidence.

The accused's s. 278.93 application was dismissed as the photos were not "records" with a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The s. 276 application was also dismissed, as the proposed evidence of prior sexual activity was deemed irrelevant, perpetuating "twin myths" not specific instances, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The plaintiff, Hayley Middleton, brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal action.

The proposed amendments included allegations that the defendant attempted to falsify an employment contract and employee file for litigation purposes, seeking increased aggravated and/or punitive damages.

The defendant opposed, arguing the claim was untenable and scandalous.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendment presented a tenable claim.

The judge reasoned that the alleged conduct could potentially qualify as post-termination conduct related to the manner of dismissal, which is compensable in damages, or, in rare circumstances, serious litigation misconduct that could attract damages, rather than solely costs.