Teresa Donnelly

The Crown brought an application for certiorari to quash a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice, which held that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint state-funded counsel for a complainant in sexual offence pretrial proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the lower court committed a jurisdictional error.

The Court held that statutory courts possess inherent procedural jurisdiction by necessary implication to appoint counsel for complainants to ensure proceedings are administered justly and fairly.

The application for certiorari was granted and the lower court decision was quashed.

This decision addresses two consolidated applications seeking a declaration that Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) has a duty to defend the City of Thunder Bay in multiple actions concerning "pinhole leaks" in water pipes.

GAIC denied coverage, relying on a lead exclusion clause.

The court found the lead exclusion ambiguous and, applying the "mere possibility" test, determined that GAIC failed to prove the exclusion clearly and unambiguously applied to the claims, which primarily alleged negligence related to the introduction of sodium hydroxide, not lead.

The court declared GAIC obliged to defend the City.

The plaintiff, Mizen Holdings Corporation, initiated a subrogated action against the City of Toronto and Ontario Excavac Inc. (OE) for water losses during condominium construction, alleging negligence.

The City and OE issued third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against Mizen's contractors: YYZed Project Management, Otomic Contractors Ltd., and Shor-Cais Foundation Contractors (the "third parties").

The third parties moved for summary dismissal of these claims, arguing Mizen had no right to sue them due to contractual waivers, covenants to insure, and the anti-subrogation rule, which would, under the Giffels principle, bar the defendants' claims.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the scope of the covenant to insure and concluding that the contractual waivers had not crystallized at the time of the losses.

The anti-subrogation rule was also found not to apply to uninsured losses or to prevent the defendants' claims in these circumstances, particularly where waivers were post-tort conduct.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought an order appointing counsel for a seventeen-year-old sexual assault complainant to represent her interests during a section 278.93 Code application hearing concerning evidence of her sexual history.

The complainant wished to exercise her standing and right to legal representation at the evidentiary hearing.

The court considered whether a statutory court possessed the jurisdiction to make such an appointment order.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences arising from two separate incidents.

The first incident on November 9, 2014 involved uttering threats to his mother, breaching a probation order, threatening to damage property, and committing mischief by kicking and damaging a door.

The second incident on November 17, 2014 involved assaulting a police officer by spitting on him while in custody.

The officer was exposed to the accused's saliva, raising concerns about potential transmission of Hepatitis C. The court imposed a sentence of 24 months less a day in a provincial institution with a recommendation for placement at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional Treatment Centre, along with a three-year probation order with multiple conditions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial proceeded on a blended hearing addressing two main issues: whether breath testing was conducted as soon as practicable, and whether there was a Section 8 Charter breach related to video surveillance of the cell area and the presence of a police officer during the accused's use of the toilet.

The court found no breach of the "as soon as practicable" requirement and determined that even if a privacy breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under Section 24(2).

The accused was convicted and sentenced to a $1,000 fine, a $300 victim fine surcharge, and a one-year driving prohibition.

An appeal from a conviction for stunt driving under section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged after being clocked at 149 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on a motorcycle.

The appeal raised three grounds: failure to notify the appellant of trial date, that manufacturer's testing procedures for the radar device were mandatory, and that the investigating officer lacked proper training.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the officer credible and determined that manufacturer's recommendations were not mandatory requirements but rather a checklist for ensuring accuracy and reliability.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and no error in law.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, possession of marijuana contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and breach of probation.

The offences occurred on June 12, 2014, when the accused, who had been drinking, became involved in a physical altercation with a long-standing acquaintance.

The accused has an extensive criminal history spanning approximately 11 years in custody, with a pattern of violent offences and threatening behaviour dating back to 1992.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment with credit for 164 days of pre-sentence custody (grossed up to 246 days at a 1.5:1 ratio), followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, weapons prohibition, substance abuse restrictions, and mandatory counselling.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on July 19, 2013, the accused grabbed the complainant's breasts from behind at a bar in Goderich.

On July 20, 2013, the Crown alleged the accused groped the complainant in a taxi and subsequently engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her at the accused's best friend's residence.

The accused's defence was that the first incident did not occur and that the second and third incidents were consensual.

The trial judge found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence as discordant with ordinary behaviour.

The court found the accused guilty on counts 2 and 3 but acquitted him on count 1 due to insufficient evidence of identification in the crowded bar setting.

The accused pleaded guilty to seven counts of theft under $5,000, committed through shoplifting to finance an Oxycontin addiction.

Following his initial release and subsequent bail violation, he pleaded guilty to additional charges including failing to attend court and breach of recognizance.

The central issue at sentencing was the quantum of jail time and the credit to be granted for pre-sentence custody, particularly regarding enhanced credit under section 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

The court imposed a sentence permitting the accused to access drug treatment at Westover Treatment Centre.

Following a jury conviction for multiple sexual offences against a minor family member, the court imposed sentence.

The offences involved oral sex and sexual intercourse with penetration committed against a 14‑year‑old relative in circumstances involving breach of trust and grooming behaviour.

The court considered mitigating factors including the offender’s developmental limitations, illiteracy, employment history, and supportive family, but emphasized aggravating factors such as the victim’s age, the familial relationship, substance use, and ongoing denial of responsibility.

The victim impact statement established significant long‑term psychological harm.

The court concluded that denunciation and deterrence were paramount and imposed a penitentiary sentence.