Scott Patterson

The accused, D.B., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, robbery, and other offenses involving two complainants, L.G. and E.H., on a single indictment.

D.B. applied to sever the charges relating to L.G. from those relating to E.H. and also sought to admit evidence under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding L.G.'s past willing sexual services for drug debts.

The court granted the severance application, finding insufficient factual nexus between the incidents and a significant risk of propensity reasoning by the jury.

It also determined that the Crown's similar fact evidence application was unlikely to succeed.

The s. 276 application was dismissed, as the proposed evidence was deemed inadmissible under s. 276(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, serving no purpose other than to support an inference of past consent, which is prohibited.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The parties agreed that the appeal should be allowed to correct the credit given for pre-trial custody.

The appellant had served eight months pre-trial, and the parties agreed the credit should have been 12 months at a 1:5.1 ratio.

With the correct allocation for pre-trial custody, the sentence imposed (suspended sentence with 12 months probation) remained unchanged, as did the other ancillary orders.

The appeal was allowed to reflect the proper credit for time served.

During a trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion and robbery, the Crown brought a KGB application to admit the prior inconsistent statement of a co-perpetrator for the truth of its contents.

The co-perpetrator had confessed to undercover police officers during a 'Mr. Big' operation but recanted parts of his confession at trial.

The court found that while the statement lacked substantive reliability, it met the test for threshold reliability based on procedural reliability, as there were adequate substitutes for testing truth and accuracy, including cross-examination and the use of a truth verification strategy by the undercover officers.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted.

The offenders were convicted of fraud over $5,000 in relation to a large-scale mortgage fraud scheme involving properties owned by the elderly father of one of the offenders.

The total loss to the title insurer was over $3.3 million.

The Crown sought three-year prison sentences and a restitution order against the son.

The court found that both offenders were suitable candidates for conditional sentences, imposing terms of two years less a day with house arrest and curfew conditions.

The court declined to order restitution against the son due to his destitution and subservient role, but imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture against both offenders based on the specific fraudulent funds they had possessed or controlled, giving them 20 years to pay.

The accused was charged with three counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of possession of property obtained by fraud.

The Crown alleged that between January 2012 and September 2013, the accused orchestrated a sophisticated fraud scheme involving the deposit of worthless cheques into credit card accounts to artificially inflate credit limits, followed by coordinated purchases of high-end merchandise from Home Depot stores across the Greater Toronto Area.

The accused, self-represented with assistance of amicus curiae, claimed he had permission from cardholders to use their cards and that he was merely a middleman facilitating transactions for gamblers and others who needed quick cash.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven all essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the accused's explanations as inherently unconvincing and lacking logic.

The court also dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application regarding delay in trial, finding exceptional circumstances justified the time taken.

The accused, Fred Curreri and Linda Lawlor, were charged with fraud over $5,000 against the elder Fred Curreri, Fred Curreri's father.

The fraud involved the fraudulent transfer and mortgaging of eight properties owned by the elder Fred Curreri.

The court found Fred Curreri guilty of fraud over $5,000 for his direct involvement in the fraudulent schemes, including transferring and mortgaging his father's properties and dispersing mortgage funds without consent, and alternatively, found him wilfully blind.

Linda Lawlor was found guilty of fraud over $5,000 for fraudulently transferring one specific property (1246 St. Clair) without authorization, but not for another property (28 Ruden) due to insufficient proof of her direct involvement in the transfer or subjective appreciation of its wrongfulness.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery and trafficking in cocaine pursuant to a proposed resolution of all charges.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentence and noted significant rehabilitative efforts while in custody, including multiple institutional programs and a planned admission to a Salvation Army residential treatment centre.

The endorsement was issued primarily to support the accused's request for direct release to that treatment facility on completion of the custodial portion of sentence.

The court emphasized rehabilitation and encouraged institutional coordination to facilitate treatment.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident where police discovered him engaged in sexual activity with an extremely intoxicated complainant in a grassy area outside an apartment building.

The Crown alleged the complainant was incapable of consenting due to her extreme intoxication.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent.

Despite evidence of the complainant's severe intoxication, independent witness testimony and the accused's evidence suggested the complainant had consented to the sexual activity.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on grounds of unreasonable trial delay.

The defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit fraud over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and obstructing a peace officer in connection with an alleged staged motor vehicle accident and fraudulent insurance claim.

The charges arose from Project Whiplash, a large-scale investigation involving 38 separately charged individuals.

The court conducted an attribution analysis of the delay periods and found that approximately 8 months of the 16-month total delay constituted neutral intake procedures inherent to the case, while 7 months represented systemic institutional delay.

The court determined that the defendant suffered only modest actual and inferred prejudice and that society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the defendant's interest in prompt adjudication.

The application was dismissed.

A voir dire was conducted to determine whether a proposed Tagalog interpreter was competent to assist the accused at a criminal trial for theft over $5,000.

The interpreter was conditionally accredited by the Ministry of the Attorney General and had previously failed to achieve full accreditation under the current testing regime.

Applying the constitutional standard for interpreter assistance under s. 14 of the Charter as articulated in Tran, the court emphasized that interpretation must meet standards of continuity, precision, impartiality, competency, and contemporaneousness.

The court held that the interpreter’s objective test results and lack of full accreditation did not satisfy the high threshold required to ensure the accused’s right to fully understand and participate in the proceedings.

The proposed interpreter was therefore found not qualified to interpret at the accused’s trial.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a police pursuit while driving a stolen vehicle.

He pleaded guilty to failing to stop for police, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The remaining issues at trial were whether the accused committed aggravated assault or assault causing bodily harm against a police officer by accelerating his vehicle toward the officer while attempting to flee.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence, accepted the testimony of the officer and civilian witnesses, and found that the accused intentionally accelerated toward the officer to force him out of the way.

This conduct constituted a threat to apply force with a motor vehicle that endangered the officer’s life and satisfied the elements of aggravated assault.

The employer investigated widespread e-mail abuse involving the receipt and distribution of sexually explicit and offensive material.

Six employees were discharged and grieved their terminations.

In a preliminary assessment based on the employer's best case, the arbitrator held that the distribution of such material by e-mail could create a poisoned work environment in violation of the Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Prevention policy.

The arbitrator concluded that the misconduct was serious enough that discharge might be an appropriate response, and declined to reinstate the grievors at this preliminary stage.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of Investigators in the Special Investigations Branch, arguing they should have been included in a classification adjustment negotiated for Tax Auditors in a Letter of Understanding.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction to award a classification remedy.

The Board found the phrase 'positions of Tax Auditors' latently ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of negotiating history.

Based on the evidence, the Board concluded the parties did not intend to include Investigators in the Tax Auditor classification adjustment, as the adjustment was specifically targeted at recruitment and retention issues for Tax Auditors.

The grievance was denied.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit members affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies.

The employer argued its efforts, which included holding an information day and sending letters to receiving agencies, were sufficient.

The Grievance Settlement Board found the employer's efforts were de minimis and failed to meet the collective agreement's requirement to make reasonable efforts.

The Board directed the employer to hold meetings with the union, negotiate placements with financial incentives, and keep detailed records of surplusing activities.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to secure employment for bargaining unit employees affected by the closure of several facilities and the transfer of their functions to broader public sector agencies, as required by Appendix 9 of the collective agreement.

The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's efforts, which consisted merely of holding an information day, writing letters, and making inquiries without any negotiation or financial incentives, were de minimis and insufficient.

The Board declared that the employer breached the collective agreement and directed it to hold bi-weekly meetings with the union, negotiate placements with receiving agencies using financial incentives, and maintain detailed records of surplusing activities.

The grievor, a professional engineer, sought a retroactive salary increase for 1990 based on an interest arbitration award released in 1991.

Before the award was released, the grievor was promoted to the Senior Management Group (SMG), which is excluded from bringing working conditions grievances to the Public Service Grievance Board.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the grievor was complaining about a matter that occurred while he was in a classification entitled to grieve, and he did not lose this right merely because he was subsequently promoted.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer bargained in bad faith and committed reprisals by abolishing the Quality Assurance Inspector positions after a successful classification grievance and salary arbitration.

The employer brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board to defer the matter to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board declined to defer, finding that the allegations involved significant statutory rights under the Labour Relations Act that were not essentially contractual in nature, and that the remedial powers of the arbitrator might be inadequate to address the alleged bad faith bargaining and anti-union animus.

The grievor, a bargaining unit employee, was appointed to an acting position outside the bargaining unit.

He filed a grievance seeking a declaration that his acting appointment had become a permanent appointment.

The Employer raised preliminary objections to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Public Service Grievance Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the remedy sought, as the Civil Service Commission has exclusive authority to make permanent appointments.

Furthermore, the Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the grievance because the grievor retained his bargaining unit classification, and therefore his working conditions were governed by the collective agreement rather than the regulations under the Public Service Act.