Good afternoon.
Following are this week's summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Congratulations to Blaneys' own David Greenwood and Christopher McClelland on successfully responding to an appeal in in Montrose Hammond & Co. v. CIBC World Markets Inc. This was a contract interpretation case involving an exclusion of liability clause that was found not to apply as a bar to recovery of damages for breach of contract by our client.
Other topics covered this week included the duty to defend under an E&O policy, the enforcement of mortgages between family members, sentencing for securities law offences (whether promissory notes are securities under the Securities Act), jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens in a foreign MVA matter that also involved other alleged wrongs, personal injury, child protection, security for costs on appeal and provincial offences.
Please join me and Lea Nebel at our "Top Appeals of 2019" CLE program to take place at the OBA on Wednesday, April 15, 2020, commencing at 5:45pm. In light of COVID-19, the program will be only available via webcast. If you are interested, please register as soon as possible so that we can get our registrations up to where they need to be make the program viable.
Three decisions will be featured. The first is Darmar Farms v Sygenta, which deals with the potential new tort of "premature commercialization" and pure economic loss in product liability context. Our panelists for that decision are Mike Peerless, who represents the plaintiff, and Scott Maidment, who has a depth of experience litigating product liability cases. The second is The Guarantee Company of North America v Royal Bank of Canada regarding the priority of construction trust claims in bankruptcy. Counsel who acted on that case, Miranda Spence and Scott Rollwagen, will be joining us. The third decision is Wright v Urbanek, which deals with the scope of the doctrines of abuse of process and collateral attack. John O'Sullivan, who acts for the appellant in seeking leave to the Supreme Court, will be speaking about this decision.
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Civil Decisions
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.P., 2020 ONCA 208 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Family Law, Child Protection, Expert Evidence, Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c C11, s 37(2)
Ontario Securities Commission v. Tiffin, 2020 ONCA 217
Keywords: Securities, Definition of Security, Promissory Notes, Family Resemblance Test, Offences, Sentencing, Custodial Sentences, Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S5, ss. 1(1), 122(1)(c), Reves v Ernst & Young (1990), 494 US 56, Duplain v Cameron et al, [1961] SCR 693, Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks) v. Henry of Pelham Inc., 2018 ONCA 999, R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, Ontario (Labour) v. New Mex Canada Inc., 2019 ONCA 30, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64
Vahle v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., 2020 ONCA 224
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, MVA, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Private International Law, Conflict of Laws, Jurisdiction Simpliciter, Real and Substantial Connection, Forum Non Conveniens, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Ontario (Attorney General) v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353
Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 223
Keywords: Real Property, Environmental Law, Provincial Offences, Jurisdiction, Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27
Georgina (Town) v Blanchard, 2020 ONCA 232
Keywords: Aboriginal Law, Land Claims, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Extension of Time, Security for Costs, Consolidation, Representation by Lawyer
Manos v. Riotrin Properties (Flamborough) Inc., 2020 ONCA 211
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Causation, Damages, Non-Pecuniary Loss, Civil Procedure, Experts, Dovbush v. Mouzitchka, 2016 ONCA 381
Montrose Hammond & Co. v. CIBC World Markets Inc., 2020 ONCA 219
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Exclusion Clauses, Agency, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2106 SCC 37, Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4
Van Huizen v. Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company, 2020 ONCA 222
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Insurance, Coverage, Duty to Defend, Torts, Professional Negligence, Appraisers, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, McCunn Estate v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 304 (C.A.), Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co., 2010 SCC 33, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 245, Coast Capital Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Old Republic Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONCA 540, 81 C.C.L.I. (5th) 220, Re Lawton, [1945] 4 D.L.R. 8 (Man. C.A.), Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 801, Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 2001 SCC 49
Hobson v. Hobson, 2020 ONCA 234
Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Enforceability, Property, Purchase Money Resulting Trusts, Gifts, Civil Procedure, Procedural Fairness
Short Civil Decisions
Thistle v. Schumilas, 2020 ONCA 212
Keywords: Costs Endorsement
Welsh v. Ontario, 2020 ONCA 210
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Settlements, Class Proceedings Fund, Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, O. Reg. 771/92, s. 10(3)
Abdullahi v. Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 ONCA 225
Keywords: Torts, Libel, Civil Procedure, Libel Notice, Limitation Periods, Striking Pleadings, No Reasonable Cause of Action, Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 12
Rubner v. Bistricer, 2020 ONCA 226
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Litigation Guardians, Costs
Criminal Decisions
R. v. B., 2020 ONCA 206 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Criminal Code, s. 249.4, 249(1), R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26
R. v. H. M. R. S., 2020 ONCA 209 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Sentencing, Gladue Factors, Criminal Code, s. 273(1), R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64
R. v. K., 2020 ONCA 213
Keywords: Criminal Law, Robbery, Evidence, Admissibility, Prosper Warning, R. v. Fountain, 2017 ONCA 596
R. v. L., 2020 ONCA 203 (Appeal Book Endorsement)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Abandoned Appeal
R. v. W., 2020 ONCA 207 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Interference, Child Luring, Making Child Pornography, Dangerous Offenders, Sentencing, Criminal Code, ss. 752, 753(1)(a)(i), R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61, R. v. Stuckless, (1998) 41 O.R. (3d) 103 (ONCA)
R. v. Y., 2020 ONCA 215 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Administering a Noxious Substance, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Sentencing
R. v. C., 2020 ONCA 221 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, First-Degree Murder, Motion for Directed Verdict, Jury Charge, Evidence, Admissibility, Post-Offence Conduct, Vetrovec Warning, Pathology Evidence, Victim Character Evidence, Criminal Code, s. 686(1)(b)(i), 686(3), R. v. Robinson, 2017 ONCA 645, R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, R. v. Woodcock, 2015 ONCA 535
R. v. S., 2020 ONCA 201
Keywords: Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Sentencing, Bail Pending Appeal, Criminal Code, s. 679(3)(c), R. v. Girn, 2019 ONCA 202, R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25
R. v. B., 2020 ONCA 218
Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Jury Instructions, R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670, R. v. Newton, 2017 ONCA 496, R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33
R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 220
Keywords: Criminal Law, Aggravated Assault, Unlawful Confinement, Stay of Proceedings, Delay, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b), R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27
R. v. A.S., 2020 ONCA 229 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Corroboration, R. v. Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80, R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26
R. v. J.C.J., 2020 ONCA 228 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Incest, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Sentencing, Criminal Code, s. 155(2), 161
R. v. R.M., 2020 ONCA 231 (Publication Ban)
Keywords: Criminal Law, Gang Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault with a Weapon, Uttering Threats, Robbery, Sentencing, Coke Principle, Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, s. 72(1), R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709, R. v. M.W., 2017 ONCA 22, R. v. Wilson, 2020 ONCA 3, R. v. Kinnear (2005), 199 O.A.C. 323 (ONCA)
Romania v. Boros, 2020 ONCA 216
Keywords: Criminal Law, Extradition, Extradition Act, s. 15, 29(1)(a), 44(1)(a), 57(6), Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2008 SCC 23, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
Ontario Review Board Decisions
A. (Re), 2020 ONCA 214
Keywords: Ontario Review Board, Not Criminally Responsible, Uttering Threats, Resisting Arrest, Detention Order
CIVIL DECISIONS
Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.A.P., 2020 ONCA 208 (Publication Ban)
[Rouleau, Hourigan and Robert JJA]
Counsel:
M Feigenbaum, for the appellant
K Atkinson, for the respondent Children's Aid Society of Toronto
A Sudano and R Shawyer, for the respondent MI
J Long, for the respondent Office of the Children's Lawyer
Keywords: Family Law, Child Protection, Expert Evidence, Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c C11, s 37(2)
facts:
The appellant's two sons, JPF and JI, were apprehended and eventually ordered into the care of MI, the stepfather of JPF and the father of JI. The Children's Aid Society of Toronto (the "CAS") proposed that the children be placed with MI permanently while the appellant sought to regain custody under the supervision of the CAS. After trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, the judge ordered that the children remain with MI. The appellant's appeal to the Superior Court of Justice was dismissed.
issues:
(1) Did the trial judge err in concluding that there was a risk of emotional harm if the children moved homes in the absence of any expert evidence as to the existence of such a risk?
(2) Did the trial judge fail to adequately consider the many steps taken by the appellant to improve her circumstances and whether, in light of these improved circumstances, the children could be returned to her care with appropriate safeguards?
(3) Did the trial judge fail to adequately consider MI's criminal history and violent behaviour?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
(1) No. The issue before the trial judge was not whether the children needed protection, but whether there was a risk of emotional harm if the children were removed from MI who had been their long-term caregiver. Expert evidence was irrelevant to that determination and the Court held that the trial judge's finding based upon other evidence was entitled to deference.
(2) No. The Court saw no basis to interfere with the weight the trial judge placed on these factors nor how she balanced them in coming to her determination that the children's best interests were served by their remaining with MI.
(3) No. The Court also found no basis to interfere with the weight the trial judge placed on MI's criminal history and violent behaviour, nor how she balanced the various factors in coming to her determination that the children's best interests were served by their remaining with MI.
Ontario Securities Commission v. Tiffin, 2020 ONCA 217
[Roberts, Harvison Young and Thorburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Glen Jennings and Alex Zavaglia, for the appellants T and
TFC
Jonathan Feasby and Matthew Britton, for the respondent
Keywords: Securities, Definition of Security, Promissory Notes, Family Resemblance Test, Offences, Sentencing, Custodial Sentences, Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S5, ss. 1(1), 122(1)(c), Reves v Ernst & Young (1990), 494 US 56, Duplain v Cameron et al, [1961] SCR 693, Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks) v. Henry of Pelham Inc., 2018 ONCA 999, R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154, Ontario (Labour) v. New Mex Canada Inc., 2019 ONCA 30, R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64
facts:
T was licensed to sell insurance and insurance-based investment products through his financial corporation TFC. T was also registered with the OSC to trade in securities from 1983 to 1999. In 2009, after an investigation, the Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC") issued a temporary order against TFC, and thereafter in 2014 a final order was made against the appellants prohibiting them from trading in securities and from relying on exemptions from securities law for five years.
While subject to the final order, T solicited funds from his clients and friends for personal use and to keep his business operating. The clients were informed of the OSC's administrative actions against the appellants and still loaned a total of $700,000 on terms set out in fourteen promissory notes signed by T on behalf of TFC. The notes provided for annual interests rates ranging from 10%-25%. T and TFC were later charged by the OSC with three provincial offences pursuant to s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act. At issue was whether the notes were securities within the definition of the Act. The trial judge ruled that they were not, applying the test set out in Reves v Ernst & Young (1990), 494 US 56. On appeal to the Superior Court of Justice, the appeal judge found that the notes were securities. He declined to apply the American "family resemblance" test from Reves in interpreting the term security under the Act, and concluded that the trial judge erred in finding that the notes were not securities. The appeal judge sentenced T to six months' imprisonment with 24 months of probation and a restitution order.
issues:
(1) Did the appeal judge err in finding that the promissory notes were securities under the Act?
(2) Was it an error of law to impose a custodial sentence in the absence of a proven intent to defraud?
holding:
Appeal allowed in part.
reasoning:
(1) No. The Act defines key terms very broadly, and thereby captures a great many instruments and activities in its wide regulatory scope, and then provides for many exemptions from the Act's requirements to tailor this regulatory scope to its purposes. The term "security" is defined at s. 1(1) of the Act. It consists of a non-exhaustive list of 16 clauses expressed in general terms, evidencing an intention for breadth. The clause most centrally at issue in this case is clause (e) which reads "a bond, debenture, note or other evidence of indebtedness". Section 1 provides for only two explicit exceptions to clause (e):
(i) a contract of insurance issued by an insurance company licensed under the Insurance Act, and
(ii) evidence of a deposit issued by a bank listed in Schedule I, II or III to the Bank Act (Canada), by a credit union or league to which the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994 applies, by a loan corporation or trust corporation registered under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act or by an association to which the Cooperative Credit Associations Act (Canada) applies.
In Duplain v Cameron et al, [1961] SCR 693, the Supreme Court held that a promissory note is a security for the purpose of Saskatchewan's security statute. Even still, the appellants' conduct may well have been exempted from the requirements of the Act had they not been subject to an order forbidding them from relying on such exemptions.
The Court declined to import the "family resemblance test" into the definition of security in the Act. It found that while American law can be useful, the specific mechanisms each securities system has chosen are different. For instance, the federal securities regulation in the United States was only intended to regulate investments. The definition of security in the Act opens with inclusive language, whereas the definition in The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the US opens with language indicating an exhaustive definition of security. The respective approaches of the two statutes to short-term debt instruments demonstrate a broader definition of security in this jurisdiction, which exemplifies a difference in legislative structure, namely that Congress intended to exclude these short-term debt instruments from the scope of the American statute altogether, while the Act gives no indication that the legislature intended short-term debt instruments to be understood as anything other than securities. In the Court`s view, importing the family resemblance test into the interpretation of the term "security", would raise a risk of unintended consequences and litigation inherent when tinkering with a definition central to a complex regulatory scheme. The Court found the promissory notes to be securities.
(2) Yes. Unlike criminal offences, regulatory offences are not prosecuted because they are inherently abhorrent, but rather because compliance is necessary to achieve the legislator's public interest goal: Ontario (Environment, Conservation and Parks) v. Henry of Pelham Inc., 2018 ONCA 999. Imprisonment for regulatory offences may sometimes be necessary to achieve this purpose: R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154. The principle of restraint requires the sentencing court to apply a measured response to determining a sentence that best satisfies the purpose and principles of sentencing, as in criminal law: Ontario (Labour) v. New Mex Canada Inc., 2019 ONCA 30. The Court noted that while moral blameworthiness is relevant to the sentencing of regulatory offenders because it is probative of the responsibility of the offender to which the sentence must be proportionate, it qualified that by adding that the sentence must also be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and cannot be the sole focus of the regulatory sentencing judge.
The Court of Appeal can vary the sentence on appeal if it is demonstrably unfit: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64. A sentence will be demonstrably unfit if it is clearly excessive or inadequate or if it represents a substantial and marked departure from a proportional sentence properly arrived at based on the correct application of the principles and objectives of sentencing. T did not attempt to deceive, and the evidence indicates that he honestly revealed his desperate financial situation when he sought personal loans from his clients and friends. While T did not plead guilty, he did acknowledge engaging in the conduct complained of, which placed the case closer to the guilty plea category. The trial judge noted that T is 66 years old and likely to continue repaying his clients. Five of the six recipients of the promissory notes filed letters of support. The appellants had repaid $353,500 in combined principal and interest. T has expressed remorse. A custodial sentence was therefore manifestly unfit. In addition, a review of relevant case law in Ontario securities matters reveals sentences that are significantly below nine months which involved much more morally blameworthy conduct. The custodial term was set aside. The 24-month probation order and restitution order were upheld.
Vahle v. Global Work & Travel Co. Inc., 2020 ONCA 224
[Simmons, van Rensburg and Harvison Young JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Elizabeth Bowker and Christopher Afonso, for the appellant
Allan Morrison and Vibhu Sharma, for the respondents
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, MVA, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Private International Law, Conflict of Laws, Jurisdiction Simpliciter, Real and Substantial Connection, Forum Non Conveniens, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Ontario (Attorney General) v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353
facts:
Two sisters travelled to Thailand to teach English through a program arranged through the appellant, a British Columbia company with offices and employees in Vancouver. While riding together on a motor scooter on a day off, the sisters were struck by another motorist and seriously injured. The younger sister succumbed to her injuries; the older sister continues to suffer the lasting effects of the accident. The respondents commenced an action in Ontario against the appellant, claiming damages for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and other torts. The motion judge dismissed a motion to dismiss or stay the action based on lack of jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.
issues:
(1) Did the motion judge err in applying the test in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
(1) No. The appellant conceded that the judge summarized correctly the law relating to jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in relying on the torts of negligent misrepresentation and negligence having been committed in Ontario as presumptive connecting factors; in holding that the respondents met the "good arguable case" threshold; and in concluding that the appellant had not rebutted the presumption of a real and substantial connection between the subject matter of the litigation and Ontario.
While acknowledging that the claims for negligent misrepresentation may require particulars, the motion judge found there was a good arguable case supporting a presumptive factor in respect of the claim for harm suffered arising from the appellant's alleged misrepresentations to the sisters in Ontario about the teaching in Thailand program.
The Court saw no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to rebut the real and substantial connection created by the presumptive connecting factors established by a tort committed in Ontario. The motion judge pointed out that the appellant was well-aware that it was attracting Ontario clients through representations made in Ontario.
The Court similarly saw no error in the motion judge's application of the "good arguable case" test. The motion judge pointed out that while there is an evidentiary burden on the plaintiff to substantiate the presumptive connecting factors, especially where there is insufficient particularity in the statement of claim with respect to the jurisdictional facts, "this does not mean that the motion judge is to assess the merits of the case, but he or she must at least be satisfied that there is a "good arguable" case supporting a presumptive factor," taking account of both the allegations in the statement of claim and the evidence, where evidence is led. The requirement that there be a "good arguable case supporting a presumptive factor" is easily met in this case. Moreover, on a jurisdiction motion, the motion judge is not required to subject the pleadings to the scrutiny applicable on a rule 21 motion. So long as a statement of claim advances the core elements of a cause of action known to law and appears capable of being amended to cure any pleadings deficiencies such that the claim will have at least some prospect of success, the issue for the motion judge is whether the claimant has established a good arguable case that the cause of action is sufficiently connected to Ontario to permit an Ontario court to assume jurisdiction: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Rothmans Inc., 2013 ONCA 353.
The motion judge conducted a thorough forum non conveniens analysis and considered all the relevant factors. The Court saw no basis on which to interfere with his conclusion.
Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 223
[Simmons, van Rensburg and Harvison Young JJ.A.]
Counsel:
S.R.B., in person
John A. Olah and Francesca D'Aquila-Kelly, for the respondent Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority
Keywords: Real Property, Environmental Law, Provincial Offences, Jurisdiction, Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27
facts:
In the Superior Court proceeding and a related motion before the motion judge, the appellants sought relief in relation to Provincial Offences Act ("POA") prosecutions of MB under the Conservation Authorities Act and a related regulation. The prosecutions proceeded in the Ontario Court of Justice before a Justice of the Peace, based on five informations laid under the POA. MB was convicted of those offences in March 2018. In April 2018, he was sentenced to a $40,000 fine and ordered to remediate the property related to the charges.
On motions brought by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ("LSRCA") and the Ministry of the Attorney General ("MAG"), the motion judge struck out the Superior Court proceeding. He held that the appellants had no standing to appeal, as they were not parties to the POA prosecutions and, in any event, the proposed appeal was brought in the wrong court. The motion judge awarded the Superior Court proceeding costs to the LSRCA and the MAG.
issues:
(1) Did the Justice of the Peace overstep her jurisdiction with respect to the convictions and the remediation order?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
(1) No. The appellants argued that the standing issue was a matter involving the identity of the Greenworld Trust, the true owner of the property, and that the Trust has a right under the Charter to come before the Superior Court to vindicate its rights. Second, the appellants argued that the remediation order was made without jurisdiction because MB did not either own or have control over the property. The Court saw no basis on which to interfere with the motion judge's decision to strike the Superior Court proceeding. Any appeal of the POA convictions – which were decided by a Justice of the Peace – were to be before the Ontario Court of Justice, presided over by a provincial judge. The Greenworld Trust was not the subject of the prosecution and has no freestanding Charter right that could be asserted in the Superior Court. The Court found that the appellants' remaining arguments were or could have been made by MB in the course of the prosecutions or any appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice. To the extent the appellants were denied standing before the Justice of the Peace, any remedy to which they may have been entitled did not lie in the form of an appeal to the Superior Court.
Georgina (Town) v Blanchard, 2020 ONCA 232
[Feldman, Lauwers, and Hourigan JJA]
Counsel:
Spirit Warrior (aka G.B.), appearing as spokesperson for the moving party, Grand Chief WBE (aka A.B.)
J Davis, appearing in person
E Wagner, for the responding parties, R.P., D.D., D.E., D.C., and J.Q.
JR Hart, for the responding party, the Corporation of the Town of Georgina
D Luxat, for the responding party, Attorney General of Canada
K Chatterjee, for the responding party, Attorney General of Ontario
Keywords: Aboriginal Law, Land Claims, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Extension of Time, Security for Costs, Consolidation, Representation by Lawyer
facts:
Issues in two separate matters were heard before the Court following an order by Thorburn JA dated January 27, 2020.
The first matter concerned the appeal of an endorsement by Casullo J in Blanchard v Georgina (Town) ("Georgina"). As part of that matter, the Court considered two motions. The first was a motion to review the order of Roberts JA ordering the appellant to pay security for costs of the appeal. The second was an ex parte motion by the Town of Georgina to dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the security for costs.
The second matter arose in the proposed appeal of Grand Chief v Phillips et al ("Grand Chief"). That claim was dismissed and Thorburn JA denied an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
A procedural preliminary issue also arose: in her decision dated January 27, 2020, Thorburn JA ordered that the Grand Chief could not be represented by Spirit Warrior (aka GB) because he had been suspended by the Law Society of Ontario. Spirit Warrior had shown up to the hearing, but advised the Court that he was there as Grand Chief's spokesperson and not in the capacity of a lawyer.
issues:
(1) Could Spirit Warrior (aka GB) represent the Grand Chief in the Grand Chief matter?
(2) Should the Georgina appeal be stayed and / or consolidated with other appeals in respect of alleged related land claims?
(3) Was the order of Roberts JA for the appellant B to pay security for costs of the appeal in the Georgina matter complied with?
(4) Did Thorburn JA err in denying an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in the Grand Chief matter?
holding:
Appeals dismissed.
reasoning:
(1) No. The Court allowed Spirit Warrior to be the authorized spokesperson for the Grand Chief, but not counsel on account of Spirit Warrior (aka GB) being suspended by the Law Society of Ontario.
(2) No. The Court found no basis to stay any of the appeals or to consolidate them together.
(3) No. The Grand Chief did not argue that the order for security for costs ought to be set aside. The only issue was whether it had been complied with. As no payment into court has been made, and the proposed payment was on condition only, and not in accordance with the order of Roberts JA, the Georgina appeal was dismissed with costs.
(4) No. The Court found Thorburn JA made no error in denying an extension of time to appeal.
Manos v. Riotrin Properties (Flamborough) Inc., 2020 ONCA 211
[Rouleau, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Sabatina Vassalli and Jeff Goit, for the appellant
Sivan Tumarkin and Michael Gerhard, for the respondent
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Causation, Damages, Non-Pecuniary Loss, Civil Procedure, Experts, Dovbush v. Mouzitchka, 2016 ONCA 381
facts:
The respondent was accidentally sprayed with a fire extinguisher by an employee of the appellant. He commenced an action to recover damages for a respiratory injury he was alleged to have suffered as a result of the incident. The respondent claimed to suffer from reactive airways disorder syndrome ("RADS") as a result of the incident. At trial, the only issues were causation and damages.
The appellant's position was that the symptoms the respondent was experiencing were the result of a pre-existing condition, or, alternatively, that he was malingering.
The trial judge found that the respondent suffered from RADS that was triggered by the incident. He granted $225,000 in non-pecuniary general damages in addition to pecuniary damages, and damages for subrogated claims for the respondent's insurers.
issues:
(1) Did the trial judge err in the admission of the evidence of a participant expert?
(2) Did the trial judge provide inadequate reasons for his judgment by failing to consider relevant evidence of the appellant's experts?
(3) Did the trial judge err in relying on foreign jurisprudence in making an award of non-pecuniary damages that was manifestly excessive?
holding:
Appeal allowed.
reasoning:
(1) No. The trial judge did not rely on the evidence of Dr. K. regarding legal causation. Rather, the court found that he permissibly relied on Dr. K.'s evidence about his diagnosis, which was based on his observations and participation in the events as a treating physician.
(2) Yes. The court found that the trial judge provided inadequate reasons because he did not explicitly consider the medical evidence of the appellant's witnesses regarding whether the respondent is suffering from RADS. Further, the trial judge did not engage on the critical causation issue. The result was that the court could not effectively review the trial judge's reasoning process on this critical issue. A new trial was ordered.
(3) Given the court's conclusion that a new trial is required, it was unnecessary to consider this ground of appeal.
Montrose Hammond & Co. v. CIBC World Markets Inc., 2020 ONCA 219
[Rouleau, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Geoff R. Hall and Anu Koshal, for the appellant
David E. Greenwood and Christopher McClelland, for the respondents
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Exclusion Clauses, Agency, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2106 SCC 37, Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4
facts:
The appellant entered into a contract with the respondent under which the appellant agreed to provide the respondents' start up hedge fund with access to the appellant's electronic trading system, in addition to assistance in executing orders through this system. The contract limited CIBC's liability and offered services to use proprietary automated trading software from various suppliers, including a technology developed by Belzberg Technologies Inc. ("Belzberg"). The respondents did not deal directly with Belzberg until after they were instructed to do so by the appellant until September 2008. On March 18, 2009, the respondents alerted the appellant and Belzberg about some software issues, and without the respondents' knowledge, Belzberg shut down the software which resulted in over a million dollars of losses. The trial judge decided that the indemnity clauses of the contract did not exclude the appellant's liability for the respondent's losses, and that the Belzberg employees that caused the error were acting as the appellant's apparent or ostensible agents.
issues:
(1) What was the standard of review?
(2) Did the trial judge err in his interpretation of the exclusion clauses in the contract between the parties?
(3) Did the trial judge err in determining that the Belzberg employees were apparent or ostensible agents of the appellant?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
(1) The standard of review to be applied to the issue of contractual interpretation is palpable and overriding error in this case. There is no evidence that the contract between the parties was a standard form contract, that the interpretation at issue was of precedential value, or that there was no meaningful factual matrix: Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, at para. 24. Rather, the evidence indicates that the contract in issue here was the subject of negotiations, although the contract wording proffered by CIBC was not changed. As a result, the palpable and overriding standard of review applies to the trial judge's interpretation of the contract. Absent overriding and palpable error or extricable error of law (of which there was none here), deference is owed to the trial judge's reasonable interpretation of the contract: Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, at paras. 50, 53 and 55; Ledcor, at para. 21.
(2) No. The appellant claimed that the trial judge incorrectly interpreted the exclusion of liability clauses of the contract. The Court determined that the trial judge correctly applied the three-part analytical approach from Tercon Contractors Ltd. to determine the applicability of the exclusion clauses. The trial judge was instructed by the case law to interpret the clauses "harmoniously as a whole" and correctly determined that the exclusion clauses only excluded liability for matters that were beyond the appellant's control. The Court decided that the trial judge was correct in finding that Belzberg's act of shutting off the software was a matter within the appellant's control.
(3) No. The appellant asserted that the trial judge misapplied the test for ostensible or apparent authority. However, the Court rejected this argument and determined that the respondents relied on the appellant's representation in September 2008 that they were to deal directly with Belzberg. This is why they contacted Belzberg directly on March 28, 2009.
Van Huizen v. Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company, 2020 ONCA 222
[Hoy A.C.J.O., van Rensburg and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Heather Gray, for the appellant
R. Steven Baldwin, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Standard of Review, Insurance, Coverage, Duty to Defend, Torts, Professional Negligence, Appraisers, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, McCunn Estate v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 304 (C.A.), Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co., 2010 SCC 33, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 245, Coast Capital Equipment Finance Ltd. v. Old Republic Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONCA 540, 81 C.C.L.I. (5th) 220, Re Lawton, [1945] 4 D.L.R. 8 (Man. C.A.), Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 801, Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 2001 SCC 49
facts:
The respondent, VH, is a professional appraiser and member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada ("AIC"). VH carries on business through a corporation, which operates under the business style of the other respondent, Hastings Appraisal Services ("Hastings") (collectively, "the respondents").
The appellant, Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company, issued a professional liability insurance policy to the AIC (the "Master Policy"). Coverage under the Master Policy was extended to the respondents pursuant to an individual certificate of insurance, issued by the appellant to VH (the "VH Contract").
The defence and settlement section of the Master Policy stated, in relevant part, that:
"The Insurer shall have the right and the duty to defend, with respect to such insurance as is afforded by this Policy, any Claim made against an Insured..."
The respondents brought the underlying action against the appellant, after it refused to defend and indemnify the respondents in relation to three lawsuits that were ultimately brought against them (the "appraisal proceedings"). All three of the lawsuits arose out of a single residential appraisal, which was alleged to have been negligently performed by DB, another professional appraiser who was insured with the appellant under the Master Policy, and his own individual certificate of insurance (the "DB Contract"). It was alleged that the respondents were DB's employers and, as such, were vicariously liable for his negligent acts or omissions.
The appellant subsequently moved for summary judgment to dismiss the respondents' action against it on the basis that the VH Contract did not provide coverage to the respondents for the alleged professional negligence of DB. The appellant further submitted that that the respondents were not, in fact, DB's employer and, therefore, they were not covered under the VH Contract nor the DB Contract.
In dismissing the appellant's motion and granting judgment in favour of the respondents, the motion judge held that the appellant had a duty to defend the respondents in relation to DB's allegedly negligent appraisal. In making his determination, the motion judge found that the terms, "Member" and "Insured", were broad enough to include both VH and DB who were insured under the same Master Policy but different certificates. As a result, he concluded that "[VH] coverage for a legal claim arising from his own actions and also when it flows from his legal status as an employer of the alleged wrongdoer." The motion judge, however, was not asked to consider whether the respondents were covered as DB's employer under the DB Contract. Notably, DB died before the appellant's motion was heard.
In a subsequent endorsement dated September 20, 2018, the motion judge clarified that the appellant's duty to defend included both VH and Hastings.
issues:
(1) Did the motion judge err in finding that the appellant's duty to defend the respondents was engaged under the VH insurance contract?
(2) If the appeal is allowed, should summary judgment be granted to the appellant?
holding:
Appeal allowed, in part.
reasoning:
Before turning to the specific issues on appeal, the Court found it necessary to clarify the distinction between an insurance contract and an insurance policy. As was explained by the Court, while an insurance policy may evidence the existence of an insurance contract, by setting out terms that govern the relationship between the parties to an insurance contract, it is the contract that gives rise to legal consequences and, therefore, must be the subject of interpretation for the purposes of determining the parties' rights and obligations.
(1) Yes. The motion judge erred in finding that the appellant's duty to defend was engaged. While the Court found that the motion judge correctly set out the relevant interpretative principles in determining whether the pleadings and the Master Policy created a duty to defend, the Court held that he erred in applying those principles. Specifically, the Court found that the motion judge erred by narrowing his inquiry to the language of the pleadings and the Master Policy. In doing so, the motion judge effectively treated the Master Policy as the insurance contract between VH and the appellant, which, in turn, led him to conflate the VH Insurance Contract and the DB Insurance Contract. As a result, the motion judge interpreted the Master Policy as if it constituted a binding contract between the appellant and all members who had been issued a certificate, which it did not. Given that both VH and BD held certificates, the motion judge further erred in concluding that they were both "Insured" and that VH was therefore covered under the Master Policy for liability arising out of DB's alleged negligent appraisal. As was held by the Court, each member who desires coverage must apply for the coverage on terms set out in the Master Policy. Since it is only after an assessment of the individual member's risk, acceptance of the individual's application, and payment of the premium, that an individual certificate of insurance is issued to that member, it follows that each member who holds a certificate will be bound by both identical terms as set out in the Master Policy and by the unique terms as set out in their discrete certificates. Based on the foregoing, the Court found that the motion judge's conclusion was not owed deference: Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37.
Although not strictly necessary in light of the Court's disposition, the Court went on to note that the motion judge did properly reject the appellant's submission that it did not owe the respondents a duty to defend under the VH Contract on the basis that the respondents had denied that they were DB's "Employer" (as defined in the Master Policy) in the appraisal proceedings. As was noted by the Court, when determining whether there is a duty to defend, the court interprets the pleadings and the insurance contract to determine if there is the mere possibility that the claim, as pleaded, falls within the scope of coverage under the insurance contract. Since the Statement of Claim in the appraisal proceedings alleged that the respondents were DB's "employer", this was sufficient.
Finally, the Court held that, based on the specific terms of the Master Policy and the VH Contract and the specific definitions given to the terms "Member" and "Insured" contained therein, coverage under the VH Contract only extended to the respondents for any potential professional negligence claims brought against VH respecting his provision of professional services. Stated differently, the Court held that there was no coverage under the VH Contract for any claim related to an act of professional negligence committed by anyone other than VH.
(2) No. Although the appeal was allowed, the Court held that summary judgment should not be granted to the appellant. In making its determination, the Court found that there were outstanding issues that required determination, such as the issue of whether the appellant had a duty to defend the respondents as DB's alleged employer under the DB Contract.
Hobson v. Hobson, 2020 ONCA 234
[Rouleau, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Paul Ledroit, for the appellant
William Fawcett, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Enforceability, Property, Purchase Money Resulting Trusts, Gifts, Civil Procedure, Procedural Fairness
facts:
This case concerns the ownership of a cottage that was purchased by K and GH for $147,694 in 2001. Title to the cottage was registered in the name of their daughter, T. At the time of purchase, a mortgage was registered against the property in favour of K and G (the "original mortgage"). This mortgage was in the amount of $175,000, which represented the full purchase price, plus the cost of planned improvements to the property.
In 2009, K passed away. G had the property appraised. It had appreciated considerably. A new mortgage in the amount of $350,000 was registered on title in favour of G (the "subsequent mortgage").
After a falling out with T, G commenced an application in which the only substantive relief she sought was a declaration that she is "the true owner" of the cottage. The application was unsuccessful, with the judge finding that K and G had gifted the cottage to T. However, the judge went on to find T liable under the original mortgage. T appealed.
issues:
(1) Did the trial judge err in making a determination regarding T's liability under the original mortgage?
holding:
Appeal allowed.
reasoning:
(1) Yes. The court found that the trial judge erred in granting an order on a substantive issue that was not in the notice application or contained in the submissions made by the parties at trial. It was further found that, in these circumstances, it would be unfair to foreclose T from making arguments and adducing evidence in support of her position that she had no liability under either mortgage.
SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS
Thistle v. Schumilas, 2020 ONCA 212
[Watt, Hourigan and Trotter JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Marie Sydney, for the appellant
Sean Zeitz, for the respondent
Keywords: Costs Endorsement
Welsh v. Ontario, 2020 ONCA 210
[Hoy A.C.J.O., Paciocco and Nordheimer JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Jonathan Sydor, for the appellant
Shantona Chaudhury and Brodie Noga, for The Law Foundation of Ontario
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Settlements, Class Proceedings Fund, Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, O. Reg. 771/92, s. 10(3)
Abdullahi v. Children's Aid Society of Toronto, 2020 ONCA 225
[Rouleau, Hourigan and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
M.A., acting in person
Alex Redinger, for the Ministry of the Attorney General, J.G., R.L. and J.B.
Brennagh Smith, for all Police Respondents
Keywords: Torts, Libel, Civil Procedure, Libel Notice, Limitation Periods, Striking Pleadings, No Reasonable Cause of Action, Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L. 12
Rubner v. Bistricer, 2020 ONCA 226
[Feldman, Pepall and Miller JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Anne Posno and Amy Sherrard, for the appellants, A.B. and B.B.
David Steinberg, for the respondent B.R. in his capacity as Litigation Guardian for E.R.
Arieh Bloom, for the respondents M.R. and J.R. in their capacity as Joint Attorneys for Property of E.R.
John Adair, for the respondent J.R.
Ian C. Matthews, for the intervenors on the appeal Mattamy (Sixth Line) Limited, Mattamy (Oak) Limited, Mattamy (Penlow) Limited, 1214850 Ontario Inc., Mattamy Realty Limited, Ruland Realty Limited, and Bratty BuildinG
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Litigation Guardians, Costs
CRIMINAL DECISIONS
R. v. B., 2020 ONCA 206 (Publication Ban)
[Hoy A.C.J.O., Paciocco and Nordheimer JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Amanda M. Ross, for the appellant
Bradley Reitz, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Criminal Code, s. 249.4, 249(1), R. v. Roy, 2012 SCC 26
R. v. H. M. R. S., 2020 ONCA 209 (Publication Ban)
[Watt, Paciocco and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
H.M.R.S., in person by video conference
Amy Ohler, duty counsel
Jessica Smith Joy, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Sentencing, Gladue Factors, Criminal Code, s. 273(1), R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64
R. v. K., 2020 ONCA 213
[Watt, Paciocco and Fairburn JJ.A.]
Counsel:
K.K., appearing via videoconference
Jessica Smith Joy, for the respondent
Joseph Wilkinson, duty counsel
Keywords: Criminal Law, Robbery, Evidence, Admissibility, Prosper Warning, R. v. Fountain, 2017 ONCA 596
R. v. L., 2020 ONCA 203 (Appeal Book Endorsement)
[Nordheimer, Harvison Young and Zarnett JJ.A.]
Counsel:
J.L., acting in person
Ronald A. Sabo, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Abandoned Appeal
R. v. W., 2020 ONCA 207(Publication Ban)
[Feldman, Pardu and Roberts JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Geoff Haskell, for the appellant
Christopher Webb, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Interference, Child Luring, Making Child Pornography, Dangerous Offenders, Sentencing, Criminal Code, ss. 752, 753(1)(a)(i), R. v. Steele, 2014 SCC 61, R. v. Stuckless, (1998) 41 O.R. (3d) 103 (ONCA)
R. v. Y., 2020 ONCA 215 (Publication Ban)
[Watt, Fairburn and Zarnett JJ.A.]
Counsel:
D.A.Y., acting in person
Michael Fawcett, for the respondent
Naomi Lutes, duty counsel
Keywords: Criminal Law, Administering a Noxious Substance, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Sentencing
R. v. C., 2020 ONCA 221 (Publication Ban)
[Benotto, Huscroft and Jamal JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Philip Campbell, for the appellant O.C.
James Lockyer and Mindy Caterina, for the appellant S.D.
Deborah Krick and Linda Shin, for the respondent Her Majesty the Queen
Keywords: Criminal Law, First-Degree Murder, Motion for Directed Verdict, Jury Charge, Evidence, Admissibility, Post-Offence Conduct, Vetrovec Warning, Pathology Evidence, Victim Character Evidence, Criminal Code, s. 686(1)(b)(i), 686(3), R. v. Robinson, 2017 ONCA 645, R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, R. v. Woodcock, 2015 ONCA 535
R. v. S., 2020 ONCA 201
[Paciocco J.A. (Motions Judge)]
Counsel:
David Shulman, for the appellant
Jeffrey Wyngaarden, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Sentencing, Bail Pending Appeal, Criminal Code, s. 679(3)(c), R. v. Girn, 2019 ONCA 202, R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25
R. v. B., 2020 ONCA 218
[Hourigan, Miller and Nordheimer JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Richard Litkowski and Jessica Zita, for the appellant, B.B.
Delmar Doucette and Andrew Furgiuele, for the appellant, J.B.
Michael Lacy and Deepa Negandhi, for the appellant, C.D.
Susan L. Reid and Elena Middelkamp, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, First Degree Murder, Jury Instructions, R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670, R. v. Newton, 2017 ONCA 496, R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33
R. v. P., 2020 ONCA 220
[Simmons, Watt and Miller JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Philippe Cowle, for the appellant
Michael Lacy and Bryan Badali, for the respondent A.P.
Sonya Shikhman, for the respondent J.Y.
Adam Little, for the respondent J.Y.
Keywords: Criminal Law, Aggravated Assault, Unlawful Confinement, Stay of Proceedings, Delay, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b), R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27
R. v. A.S., 2020 ONCA 229 (Publication Ban)
[Roberts, Paciocco and Harvison Young JJ.A.]
Counsel:
D. Lea Scardicchio and Efstathios Christos Stephen Balopoulos, for the appellant
Erin Nicole Elizabeth Rivers, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Evidence, Corroboration, R. v. Lohrer, 2004 SCC 80, R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26
R. v. J.C.J., 2020 ONCA 228 (Publication Ban)
[Juriansz, Brown and Trotter JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Jessica Zita, for the appellant, via teleconference
Michael Fawcett, for the respondent, via teleconference
Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Incest, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Sentencing, Criminal Code, s. 155(2), 161
R. v. R.M., 2020 ONCA 231 (Publication Ban)
[Hourigan, Miller and Nordheimer JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Andrew Burgess, for R.M.
Ken Lockhart, for Her Majesty the Queen
Keywords: Criminal Law, Gang Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault with a Weapon, Uttering Threats, Robbery, Sentencing, Coke Principle, Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, s. 72(1), R. v. Adan, 2019 ONCA 709, R. v. M.W., 2017 ONCA 22, R. v. Wilson, 2020 ONCA 3, R. v. Kinnear (2005), 199 O.A.C. 323 (ONCA)
Romania v. Boros, 2020 ONCA 216
[Strathy C.J.O., Miller and Trotter JJ.A.]
Counsel:
Julianna A. Greenspan and Brad Greenshields, for the applicant
Adrienne Rice, for the respondent
Keywords: Criminal Law, Extradition, Extradition Act, s. 15, 29(1)(a), 44(1)(a), 57(6), Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2008 SCC 23, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
ONTARIO REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS
A. (Re), 2020 ONCA 214
[Watt, Fairburn and Zarnett JJ.A]
Counsel:
D.A., acting in person
Andrew Hotke, for the respondent, Attorney General of Ontario
No one appearing for the respondent, Person in Charge of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
Naomi Lutes, duty counsel
Keywords: Ontario Review Board, Not Criminally Responsible, Uttering Threats, Resisting Arrest, Detention Order
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
