Rosalea Wentworth Thompson

The appellant, a live-in caregiver, appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of her judicial review application.

She sought special priority status for subsidized housing, arguing she was abused by her employer and financially dependent on them.

The Regional Municipality of Peel denied this, asserting the relationship was not familial and financial dependence ceased with employment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the Region's decision was reasonable, deferring to the administrative body's interpretation of "financially dependent" within the Housing Services Act, 2011, especially given the need to allocate scarce resources.

The Court found the Divisional Court did not err by providing additional context for the Region's decision.

The accused, facing charges of criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, was detained on the secondary ground and later found unfit to stand trial.

After treatment, he was detained in hospital on a keep fit order under s. 672.29 of the Criminal Code.

On a 90-day detention review under s. 525, a preliminary issue arose regarding the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear the review given the concurrent keep fit order.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to conduct the s. 525 review, but any decision to release under s. 525 would not affect the continuing validity of the separate s. 672.29 detention order.

The court ultimately dismissed the s. 525 review, finding detention continued to be justified.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, was convicted of sexual assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainant's extreme intoxication and vulnerability, the unprotected intercourse, and the significant impact on the complainant.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth, difficult upbringing, expressed remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the Defence sought a time-served sentence of two years less one day, arguing for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit due to harsh lockdown conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied a sentencing range of three to five years for serious sexual assault, found a three-year sentence appropriate, and granted pre-sentence custody credit, including an enhanced "Duncan credit" for lockdowns and a small additional credit for limited programming due to COVID-19.

The final sentence was three years in custody, reduced by two years and five months of pre-sentence credit, leaving seven months to serve, followed by two years of probation and several ancillary orders.

The applicant, Barrie Lynn, a 66-year-old man found unfit to stand trial due to dementia, challenged the constitutionality of s. 672.851(1)(a) of the Criminal Code under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He argued that the provision, by precluding the Ontario Review Board from recommending a stay of proceedings at an initial disposition hearing, arbitrarily restricted the liberty of permanently unfit accused persons who do not pose a significant public threat.

The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient causal connection between the impugned limitation and prejudice to the applicant's liberty or security of the person.

Furthermore, the court held that the limitation was not arbitrary, as it served the legitimate legislative purpose of ensuring adequate consideration of public safety and enhancing public confidence in the administration of justice by requiring a "second look" before a stay recommendation.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, convicted of sexual assault, applied for interim release pending his sentencing hearing under s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The application was brought after a prior detention order and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding a substantial likelihood that the defendant would reoffend, particularly by breaching curfew and committing further serious offences against vulnerable women, given his history of alcohol-related breaches and the nature of his convictions.

The court acknowledged the importance of out-of-custody assessments for sentencing but prioritized public safety.