Home
David Scrimshaw's Library tagged → View Popular
Jocko v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2009 CanLII 65807 (ON S.C.D.C.)
The Board is an impartial administrative body, charged with adjudicating compensation claims submitted to it by victims of violent crimes. It is neither an investigative agency nor an inquisitorial body. It does not have the duty to search out evidence in support of an applicant`s claim.
-
s.5.4(1) does not provide the Board with the power to order the disclosure
sought by the applicants. Section 5.4(1) is designed to require that
parties to a tribunal hearing exchange pertinent information prior to their
hearing. It is designed for adversarial hearings. Nothing in that
provision gives jurisdiction to a Board to make orders compelling third parties
or witnesses to make pre-hearing disclosure of information or documents to a
party to a proceeding before the Board. The sole power of the Board to
compel a witness to provide information or produce documents is the power to
summons
CanLII - 2009 ONCJ 446 (CanLII)
[16] The proper approach where any accused claims that the failure to preserve material in the possession of the Crown results in a breach of a Charter right is found in R. v. La,
-
“The police cannot be expected to preserve everything that comes into their
hands on the off-chance that it will be relevant in the future -
There must be an air of reality that the missing evidence would in fact and in a
material way assist the accused
Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 CanLII 1666 (ON S.C.)
RCMP prosecution brief must be disclosed to LSUC investigators
-
A police officer investigating a crime is not acting as a government
functionary or as an agent of anybody. He or she occupies a public office
initially defined by the common law and subsequently set out in various statutes -
[14] The Crown does not have a
simple proprietary right in disclosure materials. [4] In
R. v. Stinchcombe 1991 CanLII 45 (S.C.C.), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326
the court set out the Crown’s duty to disclose to the defence all material
evidence, and noted at page 331, “the fruits of the investigation” in possession
of the Crown “are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a
conviction, but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is
done.” - 5 more annotations...
R. v. Korevaar, 2009 CanLII 42456 (ON S.C.)
The newly broadened principle of disclosure must be administered by reasonable and common sense reactions to the particular circumstances of each case, if it is to succeed in its purpose
-
in order to show that Mr. Korevaar’s right to disclosure was violated, he must
satisfy the court that there was a reasonable possibility that the undisclosed
material could have been used in meeting the case for the Crown, or in advancing
his defence, and that the non-disclosure could affect the fairness of his
trial. This is the meaning of prejudice in the context of this analysis
Tadros v. Peel (Police Service), 2009 ONCA 442 (CanLII)
the disclosure by one police service to another of information obtained through the public prosecution of an individual does not fall within this concept of liberty.
-
if the police were entitled to disclose information regarding the withdrawn
charges pursuant to Mr. Tadros’ consent, there is no need to decide the extent
of the powers the police may have to disclose personal information without
consent -
[35] In order to
apply the presumption of coherence, effect must be given to every statutory
provision to the fullest extent possible without legislative conflict. - 3 more annotations...
Leduc v. Roman, 2009 CanLII 6838 (ON S.C.)
Given the pervasive use of Facebook and the large volume of photographs typically posted on Facebook sites, it is now incumbent on a party’s counsel to explain to the client, in appropriate cases, that documents posted on the party’s Facebook profile may be relevant to allegations made in the pleadings
-
[29] Where a party makes extensive
postings of personal information on his publicly-accessible Facebook profile,
few production issues arise. Any relevant public postings by a party are
producible. An opposite party who discovers and downloads postings from
another’s public profile also operates subject to the disclosure and production
obligations imposed by the Rules. -
[30] Where, in addition to a
publicly-accessible profile, a party maintains a private Facebook profile
viewable only by the party’s “friends”, I agree with Rady J. that it is
reasonable to infer from the presence of content on the party’s public profile
that similar content likely exists on the private profile. A court then can
order the production of relevant postings on the private profile. - 5 more annotations...
R. v. McNeil, 2009 SCC 3 (CanLII)
While the roles of the Crown and the police are separate and distinct, the police have a duty to participate in the disclosure process. The necessary corollary to the Crown’s disclosure duty under Stinchombe is the obligation of police to disclose to the Crown all material pertaining to its investigation of the accused.
Kitchenham v. Axa Insurance Canada, 2008 ONCA 877 (CanLII)
[25] Rule 30.1 is referred to as the deemed undertaking rule. With respect to the contrary view, an interpretation of that Rule that extends the deemed undertaking to the party who provided the information and to strangers to the litigation in which the information was provided is inconsistent with the meaning of an undertaking in the litigation context
-
The disclosed information flows in one direction, from the discovered party to
the discovering party. The undertaking flows in the opposite direction,
from the party obtaining the disclosure to the party giving the
disclosure. That undertaking does not limit what the discovered party can
do in the future with its own information. There is no reason for imposing
an undertaking limiting future use of the information on the party who has
suffered the burden of producing the information through compelled
disclosure. It is equally at odds with the accepted meaning of an
undertaking to hold that parties who had no connection with the process in which
the undertaking arose should, at some later time in some other litigation, find
themselves bound by that promise or undertaking -
Where the undertaking applies, it reaches production of evidence (and
derivative information) captured by the Rule. - 1 more annotations...
A’s & R’s Trading Limited v. Uxbridge (Township), 2008 CanLII 53865 (ON S.C.)
Guelph’s good faith or lack thereof, is reflected by what it said and did, and not by the thoughts and feelings of its agents or elected members of City Council.
-
[10] The problem is that there are
no material facts pleaded in support of the respondent’s allegation of bad faith
and no alleged collateral agreement or other substantive factual basis
underlying this bald assertion. Moreover, the Township has produced the complete
public record in this matter, including tapes, minutes of meetings, and a
plethora of other documents. In the absence of anything in the pleadings beyond
a naked assertion of bad faith, the queries regarding individual councillors’
opinions or notes are irrelevant to the issues being tried. -
As Council acts either by resolution or by-law, any in-house discussions or
opinions prior to or after the fact are, in my view, not relevant, unless
material facts are pleaded to support the respondent’s bald assertions of bad
faith
Pacific Pants Company Inc. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC 1050 (CanLII)
[48] The jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Appeal and of this Court clearly holds that the provisions of paragraph 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act which provides that the Court, on a judicial review application may, in setting aside a decision when referring that decision back for re-determination, do so “with such directions as it considers to be appropriate” are sufficiently broad to authorize the Court to direct the decision to be made on reconsideration by the federal tribunal but such a direction is an exceptional power which should only be exercised in the clearest of circumstances
-
Such will rarely be the case when the issue in dispute is essentially factual
in nature -
particularly when, as here, the tribunal has not made the relevant
finding. - 6 more annotations...
Murano v. Bank of Montreal, 1995 CanLII 7410 (ON S.C.)
It is an implied term of the contract between a banker and its customer that the banker will not divulge to third parties, without the consent of the customer, either the state of the customer’s account, or any transactions with the Bank, or any information relating to the customer acquired through the keeping of an account.
-
the disclosure in this case was not reasonably necessary for the protection of
the Bank’s own interest or for the protection of the public -
To what information does the obligation of secrecy extend? It clearly goes
beyond the state of the account, that is, whether there is a debit or a credit
balance, and the amount of the balance. It must extend at least to all of the
transactions that go through the account, and to the securities, if any, given
in respect of the account; and in respect of such matters it must, I think,
extend beyond the period when the account is closed, or ceases to be an active
account. It seems to me inconceivable that either party would contemplate that
once the customer had closed his account the bank was to be at liberty to
divulge as it pleased the particular transactions which it had conducted for the
customer while he was such - 3 more annotations...
R. v. Arcand, 2008 ONCA 595 (CanLII)
A stay was not warranted because there was no prosecutor misconduct (or not much).
-
[67]
Thus, a stay may be warranted to remedy unfairness to an
individual resulting from state misconduct or, in a “residual” category of
cases, where the conduct of the prosecution so contravenes notions of justice as
to undermine the integrity of the judicial process. -
A stay of proceedings in a case falling within the latter category, however, may
be granted only where the impugned conduct shocks the conscience of the
community and is so detrimental to the proper administration of justice that it
warrants judicial intervention.
Earth Energy Utility Corp. v. Maxwell, 2008 CanLII 35673 (ON S.C.)
-
[27] I
simply cannot accept that having reviewed all of the e-mails for privilege and
having determined that only 25 were potentially relevant, which I assume
includes privileged documents, Mr. Waterhouse then inadvertently produced 385 or
63 privileged documents -
[36] Based on what I find to be the
cavalier manner in which the Maxwell defendants and their counsel produced
documents in this case, I cannot find that it would be unfair to allow the
plaintiffs to make use of the documents which came into possession of their
counsel through no fault of the plaintiff or its lawyers. To the contrary,
in my opinion, at this stage of the proceedings, which is that the case is
approaching trial, although it is not presently listed for trial, it would be
unfair to the plaintiff to require it to retain the new counsel. - 2 more annotations...
1657575 Ontario Inc. v. Hamilton (City), 2008 ONCA 570 (CanLII)
[2] The main issue in this appeal is whether the city breached the appellant’s right to a fair hearing. For the reasons that follow, it is my view that the city did not comply with the procedural safeguards set out in its own by-law in recommending the revocation of the appellant’s licence and, in failing to do so, breached its duty to treat the appellant fairly and provide proper disclosure.
-
2]
The main issue in this appeal is
whether the city breached the appellant’s right to a fair hearing. -
the city did not comply with the procedural safeguards set out in its own by-law
in recommending the revocation of the appellant’s licence and, in failing to do
so, breached its duty to treat the appellant fairly and provide proper
disclosure - 7 more annotations...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in Disclosure
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo