Civil Litigation: Malicious Prosecution/Intimidation

Davidoff v. Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), 2021 ONCA 194 (39748)
Following an action in which the Applicant, Mr. Davidoff, was found to be liable for damages for defamation to the Respondent, Paderewski Society Home (Niagara), he and the Applicant, Ms. Davidoff, brought two actions for malicious prosecution and intimidation against the Respondents. The Respondents moved to strike those actions on the grounds, inter alia, that they disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The application judge granted the motions, striking the actions without leave to amend. The Applicants’ appeal was dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed without costs.”

Criminal Law: Causing MVA While DUI

Pawson v. R., 2021 BCCA 22 (39697)
The Applicant lost control of his vehicle, and hit someone. Both lower courts held the presumption of identity applies in transitional cases. The Applicant was convicted of causing an accident resulting in bodily harm while operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over .08. The conviction appeal was dismissed. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Possession For The Purposes

Colegrove v. R., 2020 QCCA 842 (39764)
Following a police investigation, the Applicant was arrested for possession of narcotics for the purposes. A jury found him guilty on this count, and the Québec Superior Court sentenced him to imprisonment for 9 years, 1 month and 25 days. The Applicant appealed the sentence. He argued the trial judge had neither explicitly mentioned nor taken account of four Charter breaches that had been identified at the time of sentencing. The Qué. C.A. was of the view the trial judge’s conclusion the constitutional violations were not serious enough to fall into the category of “mitigating circumstances” was reasonable and consistent with the standards in this regard that had been developed in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Municipal Law: Disciplinary Complaint Fees

Ville de Longueuil v. Benedetti, 2021 QCCA 846 (39756)
Mr. Benedetti applied for a declaratory judgment forcing Ville de Longueuil to assume the costs of his defence in accordance with s. 604.6 of the Cities and Towns Act in relation to a complaint lodged against him by the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. The Superior Court dismissed the application for a declaratory judgment. Mr. Benedetti applied to the Qué. C.A. for authorization to present, as new evidence, the decision of the Ordre’s disciplinary council dismissing the charges brought by the Syndic. The Qué. C.A. allowed the appeal and the motion for authorization to present new evidence. It set aside the trial judge’s decision and granted the application for a declaratory judgment noting the obligation of Ville de Longueuil to assume Mr. Benedetti’s costs of representation incurred in relation to the disciplinary complaint. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”

Criminal Law: Private Prosecutions

P.C. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 ONCA 652 (39805)
The Applicant was a private informant who laid an information before a Justice of the Peace, alleging the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) and some of its members committed several indictable offences against his wife, who is a member of that police force. A month after the private information was laid, the Applicant appeared before a Justice of the Peace who conducted a hearing (pre‑enquete) to determine whether a process should be issued to compel the attendance of the OPP and the named officers to attend and answer to the charges. The Justice of the Peace declined to issue process on six of the alleged offences but ordered the issuance of process on one charge. The Crown counsel at that hearing stayed the final charge. The Applicant applied to the Superior Court of Justice, seeking orders in lieu of mandamus and certiorari to compel the issuance of process and to quash the stay entered by the Crown.  This application was dismissed.  The Applicant’s appeal from that decision was then dismissed. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”