Robert Pelletier

The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings unless the state funded his defence on a charge under the Excise Act.

The court found that a previous Rowbotham decision had already determined the accused’s indigency and inability to fund counsel, creating issue estoppel preventing relitigation of that question.

The court further concluded that despite the relative simplicity of the possession charge, the presence of statements evidence, a jointly charged co‑accused represented by counsel, and the potential for incarceration created a real risk that the accused could not receive a fair trial without legal representation.

A conditional stay was therefore warranted to permit the state an opportunity to provide publicly funded counsel.

Décision sur la peine à la suite d’un plaidoyer de culpabilité à des infractions sexuelles historiques commises contre deux victimes mineures.

Le tribunal a mis l’accent sur la dénonciation et la dissuasion, l’abus de confiance, la répétition des agressions et les séquelles psychologiques profondes et persistantes décrites dans les déclarations des victimes.

Les facteurs atténuants comprenaient le plaidoyer de culpabilité, l’absence d’antécédents judiciaires, l’absence apparente de récidive depuis 1980 et le soutien familial et communautaire.

Une peine globale de 30 mois d’emprisonnement a été imposée, avec diverses ordonnances accessoires prévues au Code Criminel.

The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion to set aside a final default order issued after an uncontested trial granting custody, support, and related relief to the applicant.

The court considered the established test for setting aside a default judgment: promptness in bringing the motion, a satisfactory explanation for the default, and the existence of an arguable case on the merits.

The court found the respondent acted promptly after learning of the order, provided a reasonable explanation for failing to file an answer due to concurrent criminal, civil, and investigative matters, and demonstrated significant issues requiring adjudication, including custody arrangements and complex financial disclosure.

The court was also troubled that the applicant proceeded to an uncontested trial despite knowing the respondent had recently retained counsel who indicated responding materials were forthcoming.

The default order was set aside except for the existing parenting schedule, which remained temporarily in force pending further proceedings.

The defendants brought two preliminary motions challenging the Ontario court’s territorial jurisdiction and asserting that the plaintiff’s action for breach of contract was statute‑barred.

The claim sought recovery of $188,000 allegedly provided for risk‑free investment that was lost during the 2008 financial crisis.

Applying the real and substantial connection framework and Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found sufficient connection to Ontario given the plaintiff’s residence and the sequence of events.

The court further held that acknowledgments of the debt and promises of repayment could extend the limitation period.

Both preliminary objections were dismissed.

The municipal property assessment authority sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board that reclassified a property from the industrial tax category to the commercial category.

The Board had relied in part on a Wikipedia definition of “manufacturing” and introduced criteria relating to the scale of operations and whether manufacturing constituted the predominant activity of the business.

The court held that the addition of these criteria raised a serious question regarding the correctness of the Board’s interpretation of Ontario Regulation 282/98 defining industrial property.

The court also found that the issue had broader importance for the property assessment process in Ontario.

Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was granted.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to remove references to the Construction Lien Act and proceed on a breach of contract basis after its construction lien had previously been vacated as out of time.

The defendants opposed the amendment and brought a cross-motion seeking dismissal of the action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the original statement of claim already implicitly advanced a contractual claim and that the order vacating the lien did not determine the contractual issues.

Although the action had experienced significant delay and periods of inactivity, the court found the delay sufficiently explained and not prejudicial to a fair trial.

The plaintiff was permitted to amend the pleadings and the defendants’ cross-motion for dismissal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging negligence and abuse of position against a band council, its employees, and police officers arising from a disputed land transfer on reserve lands.

The court held that employees of a band council are analogous to municipal officials and benefit from protections against personal liability for acts performed in good faith in the exercise of public duties.

The pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action against the individually named defendants and did not adequately particularize how the police conduct caused the plaintiff’s alleged damages.

The claims against the individual defendants were struck, but the negligence action against the band council itself was allowed to proceed.

The plaintiff was granted leave to file a fresh statement of claim compliant with the Rules of Civil Procedure and could amend to plead fraud, bad faith, or dishonesty if supported.

The plaintiffs brought a defamation action against the defendant arising from a public response letter published after a newspaper article criticizing the defendant’s investigation into farm animal conditions.

The defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the publication was protected by qualified privilege, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to strike the defence.

The court held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine whether the defence of qualified privilege applied or had been defeated by malice.

Numerous factual disputes concerning the underlying investigation, the accuracy of the statements made, and the defendant’s dominant motive required credibility assessments that could only properly occur at trial.

Both motions were therefore dismissed and the issue of qualified privilege left to be determined on a full evidentiary record.

The moving party sought to vary a spousal support order incorporated from a separation agreement following a substantial reduction in income after job loss.

The agreement fixed spousal support at $2,000 per month until the payor reached age 60 and expressly contemplated a temporary reduction if specific conditions were met, including job loss and income below a defined threshold before a specified age.

The court held that the alleged change in circumstances was not a material change because the possibility of job loss and reduced income had been expressly contemplated by the agreement.

Applying principles from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on variation of support orders, the court concluded that foreseeable events addressed within the agreement cannot ground a variation.

The motion to vary was dismissed, though the parties consented to a temporary reduction for a defined four‑month period.