Purchase This Domain

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Bifurcation of conviction and sentence appeals — Appellant sought to separate conviction and sentence appeals, citing efficiency and interests of justice — Should the conviction and sentence appeals be bifurcated? — Appeals should only be bifurcated where compelling reasons exist — R. v. M.W., 2015 ONCA 644 appliedCivil procedure — Case management — Procedural history — Appellant’s procedural delays and changes in representation contributed to inefficiency — Are there compelling reasons to justify bifurcation of conviction and sentence appeals? — Procedural inefficiency and overlap in issues weigh against bifurcationStatutory interpretation — Dangerous offender designation — Indeterminate sentence — Whether the dangerous offender designation requires the panel hearing the sentence appeal to review the trial record — Predicate offences relevant to dangerous offender designation — R. v. D.L., 2024 ONCA 908 appliedEvidence — Overlap in trial record — Dangerous offender designation and conviction appeal — Does the sentence appeal require review of the trial record? — Overlap in issues between conviction and sentence appeals necessitates joint hearing to avoid duplication

Family — Return orders — Jurisdiction — Serious harm — Allegations of domestic violence — Child’s best interests — Did the motion judge err in failing to consider the full scope of serious harm under s. 23(b) of the Children’s Law Reform Act, including domestic violence, separation from the primary caregiver, and refugee applications? — Framework for assessing serious harm and jurisdiction under ss. 23 and 40 of the CLRAChild protection — Serious harm — Domestic violence — Primary caregiver — Refugee applications — Whether the motion judge erred in failing to assess the risk of serious harm to the child, including exposure to domestic violence, separation from the mother, and the extinguishment of refugee claims — Best interests of the child as paramount consideration under the Children’s Law Reform ActCitizenship and immigration — Refugee applications — Non-refoulement — Interaction between refugee law and family law — Does the existence of a pending refugee application automatically stay proceedings under the Children’s Law Reform Act or preclude a return order? — Rebuttable presumption of serious harm upon refugee status determination — Balancing provincial family law and federal refugee law obligationsCivil procedure — Procedural fairness — Adjournments — Evidence — Whether the motion judge denied the appellant procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, limiting evidence to oral testimony, and failing to allow cross-examination of the respondent — Procedural fairness in family law proceedings involving self-represented litigants

Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Unreasonable delay — Complexity of case — COVID-19 pandemic — Exceptional circumstances — Did the trial judge err in attributing periods of delay to the defense and finding the case complex enough to justify delay beyond the Jordan ceiling? — Framework for assessing delay under R. v. Jordan and R. v. CodyCriminal procedure — Delay — Section 11(b) — Defense delay — Exceptional circumstances — COVID-19 pandemic — Did the trial judge err in calculating net delay and attributing certain periods to the defense? — Application of the Jordan framework to periods of delay caused by defense unavailability and systemic issuesEvidence — Search warrants — Section 8 — Information to Obtain (ITO) — Reasonable grounds — Full, frank, and fair disclosure — Did the trial judge err in finding the ITO sufficient and the affiant credible? — Test for sufficiency of ITOs and affiant candor under R. v. Garofoli and R. v. MorelliEvidence — Burden of proof — Third-party suspect — Misapprehension of evidence — Passwords — TOR browser — Did the trial judge err by reversing the burden of proof and misapprehending evidence about the appellant’s password and the TOR browser? — Standard for assessing third-party suspect defenses under R. v. VillaromanCitizenship and immigration — Sentencing — Conditional sentence — Exceptional circumstances — Immigration consequences — Did the trial judge err in denying a conditional sentence by requiring exceptional circumstances and assigning limited weight to immigration status? — Principles governing conditional sentences under R. v. M.M. and R. v. Pike