The backdrop to this application is an investigation by the OPP into the alleged destruction or removal of documents relating to the cancellation of gas plant contracts during the time when Dalton McGuinty was Premier of Ontario. Laura Miller, the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Premier at the time, was a key witness from whom the OPP sought a statement. An appointment was arranged to interview Ms. Miller, which she cancelled on advice from her lawyer. During conversations between OPP investigators and Ms. Miller, and subsequently with her lawyer when Ms. Miller was determined to be a â€œperson of interest,â€ Ms. Miller repeatedly refused to provide a statement or to be interviewed, unless the police would provide written assurance that her statement would not be used against her in any proceedings. The police would not provide such assurances. Accordingly, Ms. Miller never provided a statement.
Neither the Appellants nor the Respondents have satisfied either of the two tests for leave set out in rule 62.02(4). Accordingly, both the Appellants and the Respondents leave to appeal motions are dismissed. The class actions were certified by order dated December 31, 2012 and varied by the Court of Appeal on August 12, 2015. On December 17, 2015 the form, content and timing of the Notices of Certification were approved by the Case Management Judge. Public dissemination of the Notices of Certification took place on January 16, 2016 through publication in the Windsor Star. The Opt-Out period began on the same day and is set to expire on May 15, 2016 at 12:00 a.m.
Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from the Order of Matlow J. dated February 13, 2015. The failure to give reasons is an error of law. On that basis alone I have reason to doubt the correctness of the decision made by the motion judge. I am completely unable to discern the basis for his decision from the reasons provided, nor is the basis for it obvious from the materials that were before him. Further, this is an issue that affects the public perception of the justice system. As stated by Epstein J. (as she then was) in Vine Hotels Inc. v. Frumcor Investments Ltd.,  O.J. No. 4768, “a failure to provide a reasoned decision tends to undermine confidence in the administration of justice as the absence of reasons may give the appearance of an arbitrary decision, particularly in the eyes of the unsuccessful party.”
Supreme Court judges Moldaver J., Rothstein and Wagner JJ. say that "Parliament's choice to raise the mandatory minimums ... reflects valid and pressing objectives, and it is not for this court to frustrate the policy goals of our elected representatives based on questionable assumptions or loose conjecture," the dissenting justices wrote. "The hypothetical scenario advanced by the majority stretches the bounds of credulity."
The four elements a plaintiff must prove to succeed in a malicious prosecution action. A plaintiff bringing a claim for malicious prosecution has no easy task. Not only does the plaintiff have the notoriously difficult task of establishing a negative, that is the absence of reasonable and probable cause, but he is held to a very high standard of proof to avoid a non-suit or directed verdict.
Court rules 4 to 3 that the sharing of information with U.S.A. does not contravene the Charter or privacy rights. Held (Abella, Cromwell and Karakatsanis JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed.
The case concerns an incident of alleged food poisoning when the plaintiffs ate at Prego Restaurant in the Guangzhou Westin Hotel in China....there is no jurisdiction in Ontario. For the reasons that follow the motion is granted and the action is dismissed with costs.
Auto insurance-The basic facts surrounding the accident are straightforward. Not so straightforward are the facts surrounding the issue of ownership. At the time of the accident, the defendant was the registered owner of the truck
This appeal concerns the question whether the law permits a police officer to arrest or search someone for the summary conviction offence of possession of marihuana, without a warrant to do so, if the officer smells burned marihuana alone.