Trudy Mauth

The prosecution brought an application to elicit similar act evidence from a prior incident where the accused was originally charged with sexual assault but pleaded guilty to common assault.

The prosecution sought to call the prior complainant to testify that the assault was sexual in nature.

The court held that issue estoppel applies equally to acquittals flowing from a trial and those resulting from a guilty plea.

Because the accused was acquitted of sexual assault in the prior proceeding, the absence of a sexual element was conclusively determined in his favour.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm after a single-vehicle accident where his car struck a house, injuring his passenger.

The Crown presented evidence of the defendant's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and the circumstances of the accident, including his attempt to hide beer bottles.

The defence argued a Charter s. 10(b) breach regarding privacy during legal consultation at the hospital and offered an alternative explanation for the accident involving the passenger grabbing the steering wheel due to a cat on the road.

The court dismissed the Charter argument, finding police took reasonable steps for privacy in an emergency setting.

The court also rejected the defence's explanation for the accident, finding the passenger's testimony unreliable and accepting her prior inconsistent statement to a witness as substantive evidence.

The court concluded that the defendant's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol, which was a significant contributing cause of the accident and the passenger's injuries, and found the defendant guilty.

The applicants sought judicial review of three decisions by the Ontario Racing Commission and its Director, which resulted in the freezing of their purse accounts, a ten-year licence suspension, a $400,000 fine, and forfeiture of funds.

The applicants argued the Director lacked jurisdiction to freeze the accounts, the Commission failed to provide adequate particulars, the Vice-Chair lacked jurisdiction because his term expired before the merits hearing, and the merits decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court held that while the Director lacked jurisdiction to issue the freezing order, this did not invalidate the merits decision.

The court found the particulars were sufficient, the Vice-Chair retained jurisdiction under s. 4(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act having heard preliminary motions, and the merits decision was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and Notice of Proposed Order issued by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The appellants acknowledged that their licence renewals were paid by a third party in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

The panel accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts, under which the appellants agreed to return purse monies, pay fines totalling $45,000, pay costs of $30,000, and indefinitely refrain from seeking licences to conduct Standardbred Racing in Ontario.

The appellants, Jeffrey Brooks and Bulletproof Enterprises, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order.

The Ontario Racing Commission found that Jeffrey Brooks permitted his brother, David Brooks, a suspended and unlicensed person, to exercise extensive and continuing control over the Bulletproof racing operation.

The Commission also found that the appellants displayed financial irresponsibility by failing to pay numerous trade accounts and court judgments.

The appeal was denied.

The Commission imposed a 10-year suspension and a $400,000 fine on Jeffrey Brooks, and ordered the forfeiture of purse funds won by ineligible horses.

The applicants, members of the Brooks family and their associated racing stables, brought a motion to quash or stay an Order of Immediate Suspension and a Notice of Proposed Order issued by the Ontario Racing Commission.

The applicants alleged that the Administration's investigation and proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to delay and failure to provide adequate disclosure and particulars.

The Panel dismissed the motion, finding that the Administration had fulfilled its disclosure obligations in a timely manner given the volume and complexity of the investigation, and that adequate particulars had been provided.

The Panel found no abuse of process and directed that the matter proceed expeditiously to a hearing on the merits.

Daniel Waxman and Vandalay Racing appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to suspend their licenses for failing to ensure horses raced in the name of the bona fide owner.

The parties reached a settlement, acknowledging that while Waxman was not party to any fraudulent transaction, he failed to maintain the required strict separation between his racing operations and his father, Robert Waxman, whose license had lapsed.

The Ontario Racing Commission approved the settlement, ordering that Waxman and Vandalay Racing be ineligible for licensing for seven years, that over $217,000 CAD and $165,000 USD in purses earned by ineligible horses be redistributed, and that the appellants pay $70,000 towards the Commission's investigative costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Racing Commission dismissing their motion for a stay of proceedings based on alleged inadequate disclosure and delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably concluded that the disclosure order had been complied with, correctly applied the Stinchcombe test for disclosure, and did not deny procedural fairness or improperly shift the onus of proof.

The applicants, a licensed horse owner and his racing stable, brought a motion to stay the proceedings against them for alleged hidden ownership of racehorses.

They argued that the proceedings should be stayed due to excessive delay and the Administration's failure to make full and complete disclosure, including information from a 33-month investigation into the owner's father.

The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the Administration had met its disclosure obligations and that the applicants had acquiesced in and contributed to the delay.