W. Peter Murray

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal regarding the constitutionality of s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (CLPA).

This section imposes a leave requirement for tort claims against the Crown alleging misfeasance in public office or bad faith, limiting discovery.

The application judge had declared s. 17 unconstitutional, finding it violated s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by preventing "meaningful access" to superior courts.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 17 is a valid exercise of provincial legislative authority under s. 92(14) and does not infringe s. 96.

The court clarified that s. 96 protects the institutional core jurisdiction of superior courts, not an individual right of access, and that procedural changes making claims more difficult do not equate to an infringement of core jurisdiction.

The applicants sought elevated costs as public interest litigants after successfully challenging the constitutional validity of s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

The court applied the two-branch test from Carter v Canada (Attorney General), finding that the issue was not "truly exceptional" with "widespread societal impact" comparable to Carter, nor did the applicants lack a personal pecuniary interest given the link to their underlying damages claim.

The court also noted the applicants had pursued the litigation with private funding.

Consequently, the request for elevated costs was denied, and costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis as conceded by the respondents.

The applicants, representative plaintiffs in an uncertified class proceeding against the Crown arising from a blockade in Caledonia, brought an application for a declaration that s. 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 (CLPA) is unconstitutional.

Section 17 imposes an automatic stay on claims against the Crown for misfeasance in public office or bad faith, requiring plaintiffs to obtain leave by showing a reasonable possibility of success, while exempting the Crown from documentary or oral discovery.

The Superior Court found that s. 17 violates s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by denying plaintiffs meaningful access to the courts, as it prevents them from obtaining the evidence necessary to meet the leave test.

The court declared s. 17 of the CLPA to be of no force or effect and lifted the stay on the applicants' proceeding.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in cannabis marijuana in an amount less than three kilograms.

The Crown sought a six-month jail sentence followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court found that incarceration was not necessary given the accused's youth (just one month past his eighteenth birthday), lack of criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and positive pre-sentence report.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months' probation, 50 hours of community service, a firearms prohibition under section 109, and a DNA order.

The court addressed the impact of recent cannabis legalization on sentencing, concluding that while societal attitudes have shifted, large-scale trafficking remains serious criminal misconduct, but the unique facts of this case—particularly the accused's youth and rehabilitation efforts—warranted a discharge.

The appellant, suffering from Type 1 Diabetes, appealed convictions for impaired driving, driving over .08, and failing to stop for police.

She raised a defence of necessity, arguing her actions were due to hypoglycemia.

The trial judge rejected her evidence and that of her expert endocrinologist, Dr. Silverman, finding no imminent risk or lack of reasonable alternatives.

The appeal court found the trial judge's rejection of the expert evidence unreasonable and her analysis of the cause of impairment incomplete, constituting a palpable and overriding error.

The accused was sentenced for her considerable role in atrocious sexual and physical crimes committed with her husband against their two daughters over many years.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual touching of a minor with an object, direct sexual touching of a minor, and assault with a weapon.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, with 4 years and 3 months remaining to serve after crediting pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing decision emphasizes the gravity of the offences, the breach of parental trust, the severe and lasting harm to the victims, and the limited mitigating effect of the accused's own history of abuse and her secondary role in most offences.

The court issued a decision on the admissibility of electronic documents during a criminal trial.

The Crown sought to admit three distinct packages of electronic documents: Google Hangout conversations, Gmail exchanges, and additional Google Hangout chats.

The defence did not pursue arguments against admissibility.

The court admitted all three packages of documents as exhibits after conducting a blended admissibility voir dire.

The decision addresses the requirements for authenticating electronic documents under the Canada Evidence Act and establishes the evidentiary standards for proving authenticity and compliance with the best evidence rule for electronic documents.

A costs decision arising from a motion to change a child support order.

The respondent father sought to reduce his monthly child support obligation based on a decrease in income.

The parties settled the motion on March 31, 2015, with the father agreeing to maintain the original support amount until the child completed secondary school, while the mother abandoned her claim for past special expenses.

The court determined that the mother achieved greater success and awarded her partial costs of $3,000, finding divided success but favoring the applicant's position.