Purchase This Domain

Criminal procedure — Charter remedies — Stay of proceedings — Police failure to preserve evidence — Crown’s delayed disclosure — Appellants argued that the trial judge erred in declining to stay the proceedings as a remedy for s. 7 Charter breaches — Did the trial judge err in balancing the prejudice caused by the lost evidence and delayed disclosure? — Framework for granting a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the CharterEvidence — Lost evidence — Police negligence — Crown disclosure obligations — Police failed to preserve relevant video evidence, and Crown delayed disclosure of the loss — Did the trial judge err in finding that the breaches of s. 7 Charter rights were adequately remedied by a Bero instruction? — Application of R. v. Bero to address lost evidence and trial fairnessRights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 7 — Right to disclosure — Police failure to preserve evidence and Crown’s delayed disclosure — Did the breaches of s. 7 rights justify a stay of proceedings? — Principles governing disclosure obligations and remedies for lost evidence under the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCriminal procedure — Jury instructions — Adequacy of Bero instruction — Trial judge instructed jury on the significance of lost evidence — Appellants argued the instruction was inadequate to address prejudice — Was the Bero instruction sufficient to remedy the s. 7 Charter breaches? — Proper scope and content of Bero instructions in jury trialsCriminal procedure — Sentencing — Parole ineligibility — Appellants convicted of second degree murder — Trial judge imposed 20-year parole ineligibility periods — Did the trial judge err in sentencing the appellants on a factual basis inconsistent with the jury instructions? — Fitness of parole ineligibility periods for second degree murder close to first degree murder in moral blameworthiness

Securities — Class actions — Certification — Ontario Securities Act — Cryptocurrency derivatives — Failure to file prospectus — Did the motion judge err in finding that the Claim pled a reasonable cause of action under the OSA and at common law? — Standard for determining whether a claim is “plain and obvious” to fail — Class Proceedings Act, 1992, s. 5(1)(a) — Ontario Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-5, ss. 53(1), 71(1), 133(1)Statutory interpretation — Securities law — Prospectus requirements — Civil remedies — Whether s. 133 of the Ontario Securities Act provides a remedy where no prospectus was filed — Interpretation of “filed” in s. 71(1) — Remedial purpose of the OSA — Presumption against abrogation of common law rights — Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re) principles appliedEvidence — Class actions — Common issues — Rescission as a remedy — Whether the motion judge erred in finding “some basis in fact” for common issues — Standard form contracts between class members and Binance — Conflicts in evidence to be resolved at trial, not certification — Class Proceedings Act, 1992, s. 5(1)(c)Civil procedure — Class actions — Certification criteria — Identifiable class — Preferable procedure — Representative plaintiffs — Whether the motion judge erred in his analysis of ss. 5(1)(b), (d), and (e) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 — Access to justice for small investors — Standard of review for certification decisions

Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Sentencing — Youthful first-time offender — Appellant convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to five years in penitentiary — Did the trial judge err in imposing a five-year sentence by failing to adequately consider the principles of restraint and rehabilitation? — Governing principles for sentencing youthful first-time offenders, including proportionality, restraint, and rehabilitation — Sentence reduced to three yearsCriminal procedure — Mistaken belief in consent — Defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent — Appellant claimed belief in consent based on non-verbal conduct — Did the trial judge err in rejecting the defence? — Reasonable steps to ascertain consent required under s. 273.2(b) of the Criminal Code — Defence rejected as lacking an air of realityEvidence — Credibility and reliability — Complainant’s testimony — Appellant’s testimony — Did the trial judge err in assessing the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the appellant? — Trial judge found complainant’s testimony forthright and consistent with evidence — Appellant’s testimony rejected due to contradictions and inconsistencies — Governing principles for assessing credibility and procedural fairness