Purchase This Domain

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Sexual interference — Appellant convicted of two counts of sexual interference — Appeal raised issues regarding trial judge’s application of legal principles, characterization of evidence, and credibility findings — Whether trial judge erred in applying R. v. J.J.R.D. principles or in assessing evidence and credibility — Appeal dismissed — Deference owed to trial judge’s findings of fact and credibility assessmentsEvidence — Burden of proof — Sexual interference — Appellant argued trial judge misapplied R. v. J.J.R.D. by suggesting complainant’s evidence could “tip the scales” — Whether trial judge failed to properly apply burden of proof — Court found trial judge correctly applied legal principles and contextualized reasons — No error in burden of proof analysisEvidence — Credibility — Sexual interference — Appellant challenged trial judge’s characterization of complainant’s evidence as peripheral and her rejection of appellant’s evidence as lacking credibility — Whether trial judge erred in reasoning process or misapprehended evidence — Court upheld trial judge’s findings, noting deference to credibility assessments and factual determinationsEvidence — Fresh evidence — Admission on appeal — Appellant sought to admit fresh evidence regarding purchase of ATV battery two months after alleged offense — Whether fresh evidence met test for admission — Court found evidence lacked probative value and did not meet test under R. v. Palmer — Fresh evidence application dismissed

Business associations — Oppression remedy — Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) — Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) — Appellant alleged oppressive conduct by respondents, including deficiencies in financial records and valuation of shares — Did the application judge err in dismissing the oppression remedy application? — Governing principles of oppression remedies under the OBCA and CBCA applied — No oppressive conduct found; appeal dismissedSecurities — Share valuation — Oppression remedy — Appellant sought to sell shares at a price respondents were unwilling to pay — Application judge found no obligation on respondents to purchase shares at appellant’s desired price — Was the oppression remedy the appropriate vehicle to resolve the share purchase dispute? — Oppression remedy not available for share valuation disagreements absent oppressive conductEvidence — Admissibility — Expert evidence — Appellant relied on affidavit evidence to allege deficiencies in financial records — Application judge rejected evidence as hearsay and inadmissible opinion evidence — Did the application judge err in rejecting the appellant’s evidence? — Evidence required expert qualification to be admissible; hearsay evidence properly excluded

Criminal infractions — Dangerous driving causing death — Sentencing — Lifetime driving prohibition — Appellant convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving — Whether lifetime driving prohibition was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s mental health challenges — Sentencing judge’s discretion in balancing public safety and rehabilitation — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718.2(d), 718.2(e)Criminal procedure — Sentencing principles — Restraint — Appellant argued sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of restraint in imposing a lifetime driving prohibition — Whether the prohibition was demonstrably unfit in light of comparable case law — Sentencing judge’s discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors — Canadian case law on driving prohibitions and custodial sentencesHealth — Mental health as a mitigating factor — Appellant diagnosed with bipolar disorder and substance use disorders — Whether mental health challenges should have reduced moral blameworthiness — Sentencing judge considered mental health in imposing a custodial sentence but prioritized public safety in imposing a lifetime driving prohibition — R. v. Fabbro, 2021 ONCA 494Health — Risk management versus risk elimination — Appellant’s mental health challenges posed a risk to public safety if driving resumed — Whether sentencing judge improperly prioritized risk elimination over risk management — Driving prohibition as a practical means of public protection — Privilege of driving versus liberty restrictionsTransportation — Rural living circumstances — Appellant argued lifetime driving prohibition disproportionately impacted him due to rural residence — Whether sentencing judge erred in failing to consider rural living circumstances — Driving prohibition’s impact on daily life and access to medical care — Sentencing judge not faulted for not addressing unraised issue