Ron Ellis

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

While employed as a Service Canada Benefits Officer with access to the Service Canada computer system, the accused fraudulently created employment insurance claims for himself and 13 other individuals over a 20-month period, resulting in total losses of $306,221 to the Government of Canada and $7,903.33 to CIBC.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 months in federal penitentiary, along with restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture for the full amount of losses, with default imprisonment terms specified.

The defendants pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences involving child pornography, sexual abuse of a two-year-old child, and related crimes.

The Crown sought 12 years imprisonment, while defence counsel argued for 4-5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years, with credit for 14 months of pre-trial custody at time and a half (21 months), resulting in a net sentence of 5 years and 3 months.

The judgment emphasizes the principles of denunciation and deterrence in child sexual abuse cases while maintaining proportionality to the offenders' degree of responsibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and a poisoned work environment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that the remedies sought in the grievance and the application were sufficiently related to indicate a commonality of issues.

Consistent with its normal approach to avoid simultaneous proceedings and conflicting determinations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process.

The accused was charged with two counts of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from a motor vehicle collision at a Costco store parking lot in London, Ontario.

The vehicle, operated in reverse, travelled approximately 59 meters across the parking lot and crashed through the front entrance of the store, resulting in the deaths of two individuals (including a newborn) and injuries to two others.

The accused claimed her foot became caught under the brake pedal while she was unable to apply the brakes.

The court rejected this explanation as physically impossible based on the vehicle's pedal configuration and the accused's shoe dimensions.

The court found the accused guilty of the lesser included offence of dangerous driving rather than criminal negligence, distinguishing the case based on the absence of wanton or reckless disregard required for the more serious charge.

The applicant was charged with luring a person under the age of 16 by means of telecommunication contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant pleaded guilty but sought a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of his Charter rights under section 7 and claiming entrapment.

The police had posted an advertisement on Kijiji posing as a 14-year-old female and engaged in email communications with the applicant over several months.

The court rejected the entrapment defence, finding that the police conducted a valid bona fide investigation using a legitimate investigative technique at a location where the crime is committed at a high rate, and that there was no inducement that would offend basic community values.

Media organizations sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge’s order imposing a partial publication ban and denying access to a video exhibit tendered during a guilty plea for obstruction of justice arising from a detention-centre death.

The applicants argued that the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction and that the order failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The Superior Court held that the judge presiding over the guilty plea had jurisdiction to consider and grant a publication ban related to the proceeding before him.

The court found that the partial ban appropriately balanced open court principles with the fair trial rights of co‑accused facing related charges.

The court concluded that the order was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice and that no error of law appeared on the face of the record.

The appellant appealed convictions for production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and theft under.

He argued the circumstantial evidence did not support the inference that he had the required knowledge and control of the grow operation.

The court held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence as a whole, correctly instructed herself on circumstantial evidence, and reasonably concluded that the only reasonable inference was guilt.

The court also rejected the submission that documents seized from the appellant’s home were used improperly.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused brought an application to exclude statements made to police following arrest for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused argued that police violated his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by questioning him after he had requested to speak with a lawyer and before he had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found that although the police were justified in delaying access to a telephone until arrival at the station due to safety and logistical concerns, officers nonetheless elicited information from the accused during the hold‑off period.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held the Charter breaches were serious and significantly impacted the accused’s right against self‑incrimination.

The accused’s statements made between arrest and arrival at the police station were excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused applied for a Fisher (Peterman) order seeking increased public funding to retain specific out‑of‑town counsel at rates substantially higher than the Legal Aid tariff.

Both accused already held Legal Aid certificates with travel authorization for counsel.

The court held that the right to counsel of choice does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund that counsel at enhanced rates.

The applicants had not exhausted available competent counsel in nearby jurisdictions and the circumstances did not meet the extraordinary threshold required for such relief.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for welfare fraud, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that bank accounts held in trust need not be disclosed on a welfare application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicable legislation authorized the municipality to request information regarding all bank accounts, including trust accounts, to determine eligibility.

The Court also noted the appellant had access to the funds and had failed to disclose other assets and income.

The applicant union claimed that a former contractor transferred its business to the respondent when the respondent won a competitive tender for a food services contract at a correctional centre.

The union argued that the respondent was bound by the existing collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the loss of a contract by tender to a competitor does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, relying on its previous decision in Metropolitan Parking Inc.