Sandra Nishikawa

The defendant, G.W., was charged with one count of sexual assault stemming from an incident in October 1995.

The trial proceeded by judge alone.

The complainant testified that the defendant pinned her against her vehicle and attempted to sexually assault her.

The defendant denied the allegations.

The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the details of the assault and the physical feasibility given her costume.

While rejecting the defendant's account, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding the Crown's proof of sexual assault.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The defendant, Ahmed Noor, was sentenced after being found guilty of unlawful possession of a loaded handgun, unlawful possession of a firearm while prohibited, breaching a prohibition order, and failing to comply with bail.

He had been acquitted of intentionally discharging a firearm on grounds of self-defence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record for violence and firearm use, the loaded semi-automatic handgun, and the deliberate and prolonged public possession while under house arrest.

Mitigating factors included his admission of the offences, remorse, physical injury sustained during the incident, systemic factors related to anti-Black racism, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown sought a 9-year global sentence, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7.5 years, comprising 6.5 years for the firearm offence and 12 months for the breaches, to be served consecutively.

The accused was arrested on a Feeney warrant by the Emergency Task Force.

During the dynamic entry, an officer stomped on the accused's head, causing injury.

Police subsequently searched a backpack found in the unit, discovering cocaine and cash, which they used to obtain a search warrant for the unit.

The search yielded a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and large quantities of drugs.

The court found breaches of the accused's s. 7 rights (excessive force) and s. 8 rights (unlawful search of the backpack and unit), but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) due to the high public interest in adjudicating the serious firearm and drug charges.

At trial, the accused was acquitted of the drug charges due to reasonable doubt about his knowledge and control of the substances, but convicted of the firearm charges based on his admission of ownership.

The applicant, John Geddes, brought a Charter application under ss. 7, 8, and 9, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence (knife, firearm, drugs) seized upon his arrest.

He argued police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the search was illegal, and excessive force was used.

The court dismissed the application, finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on DVR footage and victim information, the search incident to arrest was lawful and reasonable for safety and evidence discovery, and the force used was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary given the applicant's resistance and the dynamic circumstances.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained from his cell phone, arguing the search warrant lacked reasonable and probable grounds and the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading information.

The court found that the ITO contained significant errors and omissions, which were not minor or made in good faith, and that without the excised information, the ITO did not establish reasonable and probable grounds for the search of the applicant's cell phone.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the serious nature of the Charter breach and the high expectation of privacy in cell phone data outweighed society's interest in the admission of the evidence, leading to its exclusion.

The defendant was charged with multiple offences against the complainant, his intimate partner, including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, pointing a firearm, and uttering threats, as well as breaches of probation.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence across counts, which was dismissed due to lack of similarity between incidents.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting vagueness, inconsistencies, and a potential motive to fabricate due to the relationship's end and financial difficulties.

Ultimately, the court found that the Crown failed to prove any of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the defendant's acquittal on all counts.

The applicant, Sayzer Sherif, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (cocaine and currency) seized during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest.

The applicant alleged breaches of sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including failure to promptly inform of reasons for detention/arrest, delayed access to counsel, questioning after invoking right to counsel, dissuading from counsel before a strip search, and muting of body-worn cameras.

The court found breaches of sections 10(a) and 10(b) regarding delayed information, delayed access to counsel, improper questioning, and dissuasion from counsel before a strip search.

However, the court found no breach of section 7 regarding the muted body-worn cameras.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the breaches were not serious enough, and their impact on the applicant's Charter interests was limited, thus the admission of the reliable evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude firearms and ammunition seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

He alleged breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the search warrants were valid and the applicant lacked standing to challenge the failure to file a Report to Justice for discarded property.

However, the court found that police used excessive force in breach of s. 7 by deploying a taser on the unarmed applicant and dragging him by his hair.

The court also found a breach of s. 10(b) because police failed to hold off on questioning the applicant before facilitating his right to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the firearms and ammunition under s. 24(2).

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) denying his claims for ongoing permanent disability pensions and other benefits related to workplace injuries from 1985.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that WSIAT's decisions were logical, transparent, and amply supported by the medical evidence and applicable policies.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, whose first language is French, sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to remit her complaint against the Toronto Police Service for further investigation.

The applicant raised concerns about miscommunication and language barriers during the initial police investigation.

The Divisional Court found the Director's decision unreasonable because he failed to address the procedural fairness concerns regarding the language barrier and relied on having received the applicant's submissions without actually reading them, as they were in French.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted to the Director.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to enforce a Building Code compliance order regarding an unpermitted dwelling unit.

The application judge had found that the building official's act of looking through the window of a storage unit constituted an unlawful warrantless search of a dwelling unit and excluded the evidence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the official was authorized by statute to inspect the property and that looking through the window of a building not permitted as a dwelling unit did not constitute an unlawful entry into a dwelling unit.

The compliance order was enforced.

This criminal trial concerned charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon against the defendant, Paul Nelson, stemming from a stabbing incident.

The defence argued self-defence.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies and intoxication.

Based on video evidence and eyewitness accounts, the court determined that the complainant initiated the physical altercation by ambushing and brutally beating the defendant.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill the complainant, noting that the stabbing occurred while the defendant was being severely assaulted and was an attempt to escape.

Furthermore, the court found that the Crown failed to disprove self-defence, as the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe force was being used against him, acted for self-protection, and his response, while involving a knife, was not unreasonable given the relentless nature of the attack and limited options for de-escalation.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant, Ahmed Noor, admitted to discharging a firearm but claimed self-defence and lacked intent to endanger life.

The court found that while Noor intentionally discharged the firearm with intent to endanger life, the Crown failed to disprove his claim of self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, Noor was found not guilty of intentional discharge of a firearm but guilty of related firearm and bail breaches based on admitted facts.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision confirming his jurisdiction over certain conductor-only grievances.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the arbitrator had only determined he remained seized of the process to decide the scope of his authority, but had not yet ruled on whether the specific lead grievances were arbitrable.

The court noted that any challenge to the arbitrator's general jurisdiction should have been brought after his initial 2018 interlocutory order.

The applicants, who are neighbours of the respondent property owner, sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances.

Following legislative amendments that removed third-party appeal rights to the local appeal body, the applicants argued they had public interest standing to seek judicial review and alleged procedural unfairness and inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing, were afforded adequate procedural fairness, and that the Committee's reasons were sufficient when read in context.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a case management order that refused to adjourn a motion to strike and prohibited him from scheduling further motions before the hearing date.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.02 considering dismissal of the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the moving party failed to address the test for leave to appeal and merely challenged a procedural direction, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the renewal of a home builder's licence despite the sole owner's extensive criminal record.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by interpreting the 'integrity and honesty' criterion in s. 38(1)(b)(iii) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 as placing an onus on the Registrar to disprove the applicant's entitlement on a balance of probabilities.

The Court held that the provision allows the Registrar to deny a licence where it has reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not conduct itself with integrity and honesty, and the onus is on the applicant to prove otherwise.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The respondent brought a motion to set aside portions of a final order made on an uncontested basis, alleging the applicant obtained the order by fraud.

The court found the respondent failed to establish that the applicant made false or misleading statements, and failed to satisfy the factors for setting aside a default order, noting his failure to participate in the proceedings.

The motion was dismissed, except for a minor rectification to correct a mistake in the equalization payment amount.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated July 18, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs for or against any party.