3 total
Court excluded counsel from an in camera review of third-party records, ordering specific excerpts disclosed.
This decision addresses an in camera hearing under s. 278.6 of the Criminal Code, following an accused's successful application for production of a complainant's counsellor records.
The court determined which portions of the records should be disclosed to the accused.
It ruled that Crown and defence counsel should be excluded from the in camera hearing, as their participation would be futile without prior access to the records and counter-productive to privacy.
The judge ordered disclosure of relevant excerpts pertaining to the counsellor's role in the complainant's police statements and the identity of the perpetrator, while balancing the complainant's privacy interests.
The court ordered production of a complainant's counselling records for judicial review due to a material inconsistency in her evidence.
The accused, C.F., applied under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code for the production of records from a school counsellor concerning the complainant, K.W., in a sexual offence case.
The accused sought production due to a material inconsistency between the complainant's police statements and her preliminary inquiry testimony regarding an act of cunnilingus.
The court found the records likely relevant and their production necessary in the interests of justice, balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights.
The court ordered the records produced for judicial review.
Application for judicial review dismissed; OLRB decision on construction work and estoppel was reasonable.
The employer brought an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.
The Board had upheld a union grievance, finding that fire restoration work at a Petro-Canada site was 'construction work' under the Labour Relations Act and governed by the provincial agreement, rather than the General Presidents' Maintenance Agreement.
The employer argued the Board erred in its application of the doctrine of estoppel and lacked jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to issue supplemental reasons and that its decision on the nature of the work and the application of estoppel was reasonable.
