In R v Garciacruz, 2015 ONCA 27, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) overturned a conviction for sexual assault. Akin to many cases, this one came down to consent and a conflict between the complainant and the appellant’s version of events. The trial judge made certain inferences that allowed her to hold that no consent was provided. At the OCA, Justice Rouleau ordered a new trial, ruling that the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient as they failed to rule out other possibilities plausibly supportable by the same inferences.

Facts

In February of 2011, the appellant’s wife was out of town and the complainant went over to the appellant’s home. After this, the complainant went to a bar to meet her cousin who was visiting town. The evidence indicates that the complainant later invited the appellant to the bar over text message. The complainant had been drinking at the bar, but the cousin’s testimony indicated that both he and the appellant were not drunk.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ever since the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the Crown’s duty to consult with Aboriginal peoples in Haida Nation v British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, courts have been tasked with determining precisely when the duty is triggered, and against which government actors the duty applies. In Hupacasath First Nation v Canada (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) 2015 FCA 4 [Hupacasath], the Hupacasath First Nation (“HFN”) argued that the duty applied to the ratification of the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (“CC-FIPA”), a bilateral investment treaty.

While the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) ultimately denied the HFN claim on its merits, it allowed the issue to be heard, rejecting arguments that it was both non-justiciable and outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

Read the rest of this entry »

In Walton v Alberta (Securities Commission), 2014 ABCA 273, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) was asked to assess an Alberta Securities Commission (“ASC”) application of the regulations on insider information. The ABCA’s decision demonstrated the complications faced by security regulators when applying the law of insider trading and its related provisions.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s judgment in PS v Ontario, 2014 ONCA 900, has determined that a detainee in a mental health institution suffered discrimination and a denial of procedural fairness, contrary to his Charter rights under Sections 15 and 7. The case arose from the 19-year-long involuntary detention of a man, identified only as PS, at a mental health institution. Ontario’s Mental Health Act, RSO 1990, c M.7 [MHA], permitted PS to be institutionalized for an indefinite period of time, but failed to provide a procedural mechanism for PS to meaningfully challenge the conditions of his therapeutic treatment. For PS, who has been deaf since childhood, these conditions resulted in a lack of access to deaf-appropriate treatment during his detention.

Overturning the decision of an application judge and finding a violation of PS’s Charter rights, the Court of Appeal severed those portions of the MHA that allowed for the indefinite detention of involuntary mental health patients – thereby limiting the term of such detentions to 6 months. By recognizing an involuntary mental health patient’s interest in recovery as a necessary core consideration for mental health law, the Court of Appeal’s decision marks a significant advancement in civil rights for individuals with mental illnesses.

Read the rest of this entry »

In Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) made a major pronouncement on the scope of the section 2(d) freedom of association right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In doing so, the court overturned Delisle v Canada (Deputy Attorney General), [1999] 2 SCR 989 [Delisle], in declaring the impugned provision (section 2) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act, SC 2003, c 22 [PSLRA], to be of no force and effect after a period of 12 months.

This case is important for providing more guidance on the standard that must be met to show an infringement of freedom of association, as it appears that the Court is moving back to the “substantial interference” standard rather than the seemingly impossible-to-meet “impossibility” standard established in Ontario (Attorney General) v Fraser, [2011] 2 SCR 3 [Fraser]. In doing so, the majority of the Court recognized that the PSLRA substantially interfered with the freedom of association rights of RCMP members.

Read the rest of this entry »

On December 4, 2014, five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department, delivered judgment on a rather unusual matter. In The Nonhuman Rights Project v Lavery, 518336 (NY App Div), the court had to consider whether a captive chimpanzee could be considered a legal “person” entitled to a habeas corpus proceeding.

This case raises some basic questions about law, morality, and what we owe non-human animals. In what follows, I outline the matter’s history, the arguments of the petitioner representing Tommy the chimpanzee, and the court’s decision to deny Tommy the status of “person” in the relevant legal sense. I close with some reflections on the distinction between moral and legal personhood and what morality might require of us in the future.

Read the rest of this entry »

On February 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will hold a hearing for the appeal of R v Appulonappa, 2014 BCCA 163, a case that will have a significant impact on immigration and refugee law. The SCC’s eventual decision in Appulonappa will deeply affect both refugee claimants and those who assist asylum seekers entering Canada.

The United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the “Convention”), July 28, 1951, [1969] Can. T.S. No 6 and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 31 January 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 29 (the “Protocol”) set out Canada’s obligations with respect to asylum seekers. For example, the Convention precludes refugees from facing sanctions for entering an asylum country without the proper documentation.

At issue in Appulonappa, however, is the question of what, if any, obligations Canada has to those who help smuggle refugees for altruistic reasons.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ontario housing activists were disappointed by a December ruling from the Ontario Court of Appeal. In a 2-1 decision, the court decided that the pleadings in Tanudjaja v Canada, 2014 ONCA 852 [Tanudjaja], did not present the bench with a justiciable issue, upholding a lower court decision to strike the application.

The application had asked the court to decide, in essence, whether adequate housing is a positive right under s. 7 and s. 15 of the Charter. It stated that changes to legislation, policies, programs and services by the Canadian and Ontario governments have led to inadequate housing and increased homelessness, which breach the s. 7 right granting citizens the “right to life, liberty and security of the person” and breach the s. 15 right of protection against discrimination. The application presented the court with a 16-volume evidentiary record to support its claim. The record was almost 10,000 pages long, and included 19 affidavits, 13 of which were from experts.

Read the rest of this entry »

On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) heard oral arguments for the case Her Majesty the Queen v Jason Rodgerson [Rodgerson] regarding: firstly, whether or not the majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in R v Rodgerson, 2014 ONCA 366 [Rodgerson, ONCA] erred in law by finding reversible error in the jury charge because the trial judge failed to explain to the jury the mandatory reasoning process through which it could consider the relevant post-offence conduct in assessing the issue of intent for murder; and secondly, whether or not the ONCA erred in law by failing to apply the curative proviso outlined in s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

Read the rest of this entry »

On September 16, 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) released its decision in Rankin Construction Inc v Ontario 2014 ONCA 636 [Rankin]. In the decision, Justice Hoy helps to clarify the law of tender by addressing non-compliant bids and the use of exculpatory clauses.

Read the rest of this entry »