Suhail A.Q. Akhtar

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to appeal a 2015 finding that he was not criminally responsible (NCR) for several offences.

The applicant had previously launched and abandoned an appeal in 2017.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal, finding that the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time frame, failed to adequately explain the seven-year delay, and presented an appeal with doubtful merit.

The application for leave to extend time was dismissed.

The Crown applied to admit the preliminary inquiry testimony of the accused's deceased mother under s. 715 of the Criminal Code or the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The defence opposed, arguing the subpoena compelling her attendance at the preliminary inquiry was invalid because it was issued by a Superior Court judge rather than an Ontario Court of Justice judge.

The court held that under s. 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act, a Superior Court judge has the powers of a justice of the peace and can issue such subpoenas.

Furthermore, the witness testified under oath and was subject to cross-examination, satisfying the requirements of s. 715 and the procedural reliability threshold of the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision finding she breached a settlement agreement and ordering her to repay $15,216.00 to the respondent.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bias by the HRTO.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO's procedural rulings were fair, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the conclusion that the applicant breached the settlement by advancing resolved claims in a civil action was manifestly reasonable.

The Crown applied for an order permitting six witnesses to testify by videoconference at the accused's fraud trial.

Three witnesses resided in the United States and three resided in Canada outside Ontario.

The accused opposed the application for one US witness on the basis of solicitor-client privilege, and opposed the Canadian witnesses on the basis of credibility and memory issues.

The court granted the application, finding that privilege issues should be dealt with separately and that credibility issues could be assessed equally well over video.

The court concluded the statutory tests under ss. 714.1 and 714.2 of the Criminal Code were met.

The employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the employee damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employee was on a fixed-term contract that had expired.

The employee cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for punitive damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the repeated renewals of the contract created an ambiguity, rendering it a contract of continuous service.

The court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the employer's advance written notice was insufficient due to its history of issuing and withdrawing such notices.

The cross-appeal for punitive damages was also dismissed, as the employer's conduct did not meet the required threshold.

The offenders were convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after police found nearly half a kilogram of cocaine and over $5,000 in cash in their vehicle.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought conditional sentences or 8 to 12 months imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for commercial drug trafficking and sentenced both offenders to 3.5 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, driving while prohibited, failing to comply with a recognizance, and failing to stop after an accident.

At trial, the appellant relied on an alibi defence, which the trial judge rejected in favour of the Crown's evidence identifying the appellant as the driver who fled the scene of an altercation and subsequently caused a collision.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof and provided adequate reasons grounded in the evidence.

The College of Veterinarians of Ontario appealed a Discipline Committee penalty decision that suspended a veterinarian's licence for eight months for professional misconduct involving workplace abuse and altering records, arguing the penalty lacked necessary enforcement provisions.

The veterinarian cross-appealed the liability findings, alleging flawed credibility assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Committee's factual findings and concluding the penalty imposed was not clearly unfit or unreasonable.

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 50 months.

The court deducted periods of delay attributable to the defence, the COVID-19 pandemic, a discrete event involving late disclosure of a co-accused's statement, and a preliminary inquiry overrun.

After deductions, the net delay was calculated at approximately 23 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The parties brought a statutory appeal and cross-appeal from an arbitrator's award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to address whether leave to appeal was required as a preliminary issue.

The court held that while it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, the Arbitration Act applied because the Tarion Addendum constituted an arbitration agreement that did not specify appeal rights.

Consequently, leave to appeal was required and the appeal was strictly limited to questions of law.

The parties brought a statutory appeal and cross-appeal from an arbitrator's award under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding a new build home purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to address whether leave to appeal was required as a preliminary issue.

The court held that while it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, section 45(1) of the Arbitration Act applies because the Tarion Addendum constitutes an arbitration agreement that is silent on appeal rights.

Consequently, leave to appeal is required and the appeal is strictly limited to questions of law.

The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of aggravated assault and sexual assault.

The charges arose after the applicant engaged in consensual sex with a sex trade worker, then choked her to unconsciousness and robbed her.

The court dismissed the application regarding aggravated assault, finding that choking to unconsciousness provided some evidence of endangering life.

However, the court granted the application to quash the sexual assault committal, ruling that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by finding the subsequent robbery vitiated the complainant's consent to the preceding sexual activity.

The accused, charged with conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder, applied for bail.

The charges arose from a shooting in an alleyway where the accused allegedly handed a firearm to an unknown suspect who then shot the victim in the face.

The court found that while the proposed release plan with sureties and electronic monitoring might satisfy the secondary ground, detention was required under the tertiary ground.

The court emphasized the strength of the Crown's circumstantial case, the gravity of the offence, the use of a firearm, and the accused's prior criminal record involving firearms.

Bail was denied.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing a head-on collision and sentenced to a six-month conditional sentence and a three-year driving prohibition.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by sentencing him remotely while he was in the hospital with COVID-19 instead of granting an adjournment.

The Crown applied for summary dismissal of the appeal under s. 685 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the Crown's application, finding the appeal was frivolous and bound to fail, as the trial judge exercised proper discretion in proceeding with the sentencing and the sentence imposed was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff and recertify a class proceeding.

The motion judge had previously decertified the action after the original representative plaintiff was found unsuitable and class counsel failed to find a replacement within the allotted 60 days.

Almost two years later, class counsel brought a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff.

The motion judge dismissed the motion as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to relitigation and raised concerns about the lack of a costs indemnity agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the abuse of process doctrine or his factual findings.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after police discovered over 470 grams of cocaine and significant cash in their vehicle.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the location of the drugs, the large amount of cash in plain view, and the accused's behaviour during the police stop.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that both accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and money.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts.

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to file an appeal of his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm.

He argued that he was unaware of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea and that he was unfit to stand trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was aware of the immigration consequences, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as he had been properly found fit to stand trial and a conditional discharge was disproportionate to the offence.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) dismissing her application against her landlords for harassment, interference with reasonable enjoyment, and withholding vital services.

The tenant argued the LTB erred in law and breached procedural fairness by interrupting her and not allowing her to proceed with all claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law as the tenant's complaints related to findings of fact, and no breach of procedural fairness as the LTB member was exercising the power to control the tribunal's process.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine and heroin, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and heroin.

During a police raid, the offender was found hiding in a bathtub, refused to comply with police directions, and was tasered, resulting in facial injuries.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the significant quantity of drugs and a lengthy criminal record, against mitigating factors such as mental health issues and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.