W. Danial Newton

The appellant pharmacist appealed a penalty decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The appellant admitted to professional misconduct involving false claims to the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

The Discipline Committee imposed a penalty that included a three-year prohibition on the appellant having any proprietary interest in a pharmacy or acting as a director of a corporation that owned a pharmacy.

The appellant argued the Committee lacked authority to impose these conditions under the Health Professions Procedural Code and the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Committee's interpretation of its broad remedial authority under s. 51(2)3 of the Code to protect the public interest was reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal council's decision not to change the name of a private road named 'Swastika Trail'.

The applicants argued that the council unlawfully sub-delegated its decision-making power and fettered its discretion by relying on a vote held by a local cottagers' association.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the council retained its decision-making authority, considered multiple factors beyond the association's vote, and did not unlawfully sub-delegate or fetter its discretion.

The court also noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reasonableness of the council's decision under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The accused, Ricky Keewasin, was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Crown applied to have him declared a dangerous offender.

The court considered a joint submission on sentence for the index offences and a long-term supervision order, but the designation as dangerous offender versus long-term offender was contested.

The court, after reviewing pre-sentence and Gladue reports, victim impact statements, and expert psychiatric evidence, found the accused to be a dangerous offender due to a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, treatment-resistant substance abuse, and antisocial personality disorder.

The court accepted the joint submission for an eight-year concurrent sentence for the index offences, less credit for time served, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, and ancillary orders including DNA sample, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The appellants, former senior executives of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding they engaged in a massive securities fraud and imposing significant sanctions, including disgorgement and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to account for Chinese business and cultural practices (guanxi) when determining their intent to defraud, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias by the panel chair, and challenged the sanctions as excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Ontario securities law overrides cultural practices for reporting issuers, the bias claim was unfounded, and the sanctions were reasonable given the enormity of the fraud and the need for deterrence.

The appellants, former executives of Sino-Forest Corporation, appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding they engaged in a massive securities fraud and imposing significant sanctions, including over $11 million in administrative penalties and $64 million in disgorgement.

The appellants argued the Commission failed to properly consider Chinese business and cultural practices (guanxi) when assessing their intent to commit fraud, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias by the hearing chair, and challenged the sanctions as excessive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission reasonably concluded that Ontario securities law overrides cultural explanations for illegal conduct, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the sanctions were proportionate to the enormity of the fraud.

The father (T.D.) brought a motion to set aside a default order that had granted sole custody to the mother (A.C.) and ordered child support, and to extend time for filing his Answer and financial documents.

The default order was issued after the father failed to comply with a consent order to file documents.

Applying the five-factor test from Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, the court found the motion was brought promptly and there was a plausible, though not strong, excuse for the default.

The court set aside the sole custody order, finding an arguable defence with an "air of reality" regarding custody and access, but upheld the child support order due to greater prejudice to the mother and the availability of an annual review.

The father was ordered to file his documents within 10 days and pay previous costs.

This decision addresses cross-motions for temporary parenting time and child support following the separation of parents with two young children.

The court considered the parents' demanding and rotating work schedules, applying the "best interests" test and the "maximum contact" principle.

A biweekly parenting schedule was ordered, primarily structured around the father's night shifts, and the father was directed to pay child support in the amount of $1,193 monthly based on an annual income of $78,800.

The plaintiffs succeeded on their appeal to add a term confirming the applicability of the deemed undertaking under Rule 30.1.

They sought partial indemnity costs for the appeal and leave motion.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $13,202 in costs for the appeal.

Regarding the initial motion below, the court found that success was divided and set aside the previous costs order of $16,686.33, ordering no costs for the initial hearing.

Class counsel moved for an order approving the form and content of the notice of certification and a litigation timetable in a class proceeding concerning former residents of Ontario Training Schools.

The defendant consented to both orders.

The court approved the litigation timetable and the notice of certification, subject to specific modifications regarding the publication list and the development of balanced training materials for independent legal advice providers.

The court emphasized the need for clear, balanced advice on opting out.

The applicant, charged with sexual interference and sexual assault, sought production of records from Tikinagan Child and Family Services and the Ontario Provincial Police relating to the complainant.

The court applied the two-part Mills test for production of third-party records.

Production of Tikinagan records was ordered due to apparent inconsistencies with preliminary inquiry testimony, while production of OPP records was denied as they were deemed speculative and not likely relevant.

Conditions were imposed on the production of the Tikinagan records to protect privacy interests.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and attempted choking.

The trial focused on the reliability of the complainant's identification evidence and the photo lineup procedure.

The complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies regarding the attacker's physical description, clothing, and details of the assault.

Although a photo lineup identified the accused, it was not conducted strictly according to police procedure.

The court found that despite the photo lineup and the accused's address matching the assault location, the cumulative frailties in the complainant's identification evidence created a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on both counts.

The accused was tried on charges of possessing child pornography and possessing it for the purpose of making it available through file sharing software.

The court relied on forensic computer evidence, the accused's admissions about device ownership and usage, and circumstantial evidence from file names, program settings, and access history to find that the accused knowingly possessed the files.

The court rejected both the alternate suspect theory and the contention that the downloads were accidental.

Applying the governing mens rea principles for file sharing cases, the court held that the accused knew, or was wilfully blind to the fact, that the software made the files available to others.

This application concerned custody, access, child support, and spousal support between separated cohabiting parents.

The court granted joint custody, establishing a gradual transition to a shared parenting schedule (week on/week off) by April 2019.

Child support was ordered from the father to the mother, with an offset for shared parenting.

Spousal support was awarded to the mother, time-limited and decreasing over three years, ending December 31, 2021, subject to a material change in circumstances.

The court found the mother had been controlling regarding access but that both parents could effectively co-parent.

The Tenant (Bryfam Enterprises Inc.) brought an application seeking a declaration that its use of the premises was permitted under the lease.

The Landlord (Harbour Carrick Holdings Inc.) responded with a cross-application for a declaration that the Tenant was in breach of the permitted use clause and for an order terminating the lease.

The court found the Permitted Use Clause unambiguous and that the Tenant's expanded menu items (wraps, salads, soups) were not permitted or ancillary to the principal business of a quick service yogurt, smoothie, and waffle restaurant.

The Tenant's arguments of waiver and proprietary estoppel were rejected due to insufficient evidence of the Landlord's knowledge of the breach.

The lease was ordered terminated effective December 31, 2018.

The accused, R.N., was charged with aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault against her six-year-old stepson, L.C. The trial involved extensive testimony from L.C., his father, step-sister, classmates, school staff, foster parents, and medical experts.

L.C.'s testimony was inconsistent across multiple interviews and at trial, raising serious concerns about its reliability and credibility.

The step-sister's testimony also changed over time, potentially influenced by an acrimonious custody dispute.

Evidence from L.C.'s classmates suggested he might have been injured at school.

Medical evidence confirmed severe injuries but acknowledged alternative accidental scenarios.

The court found that the Crown had not proven R.N.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to the inconsistencies and reliability issues in the key witness testimonies.

The court issued supplementary reasons following a 2016 decision regarding the estate of Vincenzo Demasi.

The respondent (mother) moved under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to vary or set aside the prior order on grounds of fraud, which was dismissed due to insufficient proof.

The court also finalized the valuation of personal property (tools, vehicles, bank accounts) and RRSPs, which the parties had failed to agree upon.

The court fixed the value of tools at $2,070, vehicles at $20,700, and cash in bank accounts at $73,291.99.

The amount for RRSPs held in trust for one daughter was determined to be $32,262.80, net of taxes.

Two organizations sought leave to intervene in a certification motion for a class proceeding brought on behalf of former residents of provincial training schools.

The plaintiff opposed the intervention.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that neither organization would provide assistance to the court at the certification stage beyond what the parties and past jurisprudence would bring.

The court noted that concerns regarding notice, participation, and compensation could be addressed by crafting an appropriate notice if the action is certified.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Jennifer Siemens on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drug.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred by asking if the accused's driving was a "marked departure" from that of an ordinary driver.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons indicated the evidence of impairment was too frail to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, consistent with the principles that slight deviation from normal conduct is insufficient for conviction.

Avis Industrial Corporation applied for an order declaring Gordon Gravelle a vexatious litigant, seeking to preclude him and associated corporations from commencing or continuing legal proceedings without court leave.

The court reviewed Mr. Gravelle's extensive history of litigation, which included numerous unsuccessful motions for reconsideration, parallel actions, and appeals dismissed for delay or lack of merit, often involving the same issues or parties.

The court found that Mr. Gravelle's conduct exhibited characteristics of vexatious litigation, such as ignoring adverse rulings, engaging in repetitive proceedings, and failing to pay costs.

Despite Mr. Gravelle's sincere belief in the merit of his claims, the court concluded that his actions persistently abused the court process and squandered judicial resources.

An order was issued under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, requiring leave for future proceedings and imposing conditions, including the payment of outstanding costs.

The applicant, a law professor, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of s. 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, arguing it unlawfully removed parliamentary privilege.

The respondent challenged the applicant's standing.

The court applied the test for public interest standing and concluded that the applicant lacked a real stake in the matter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that granting standing without a proper factual context could prejudice subsequent challenges by parties more directly affected.