Purchase This Domain

Health — Mental health law — Detention orders — Appellant diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not criminally responsible for prior offenses — Ontario Review Board imposed detention order with privileges, including community living and international travel — Did the Board err in requiring CAMH-approved housing? — Board’s decision upheld as reasonable based on evidence of past decompensation and need for monitoring — Framework for managing public safety risks under Part XX.1 of the Criminal CodeWorkplace health and safety — Housing approval — Appellant’s treating psychiatrist and treatment team required ability to address housing changes — Board concluded that CAMH-approved housing was necessary to manage risks of decompensation — Did the Board err in requiring housing approval? — Board’s decision upheld as reasonable based on evidence of past lack of supervision and subtle signs of decompensationSocial welfare — Mental Health Act — Sufficiency of statutory framework — Appellant argued that the Mental Health Act could adequately manage risks to public safety — Board found the Act insufficient due to appellant’s limited insight into symptoms and need for prompt intervention — Did the Board err in concluding the Act was insufficient? — Board’s decision upheld as reasonable based on evidence of subtle decompensation signs and treatment team’s expertise

Criminal procedure — Prosecutorial discretion — Abuse of process — Private prosecution — Crown stayed private prosecution alleging fraud by corporate counsel — Appellant argued Crown failed to consider expert evidence and improperly stayed prosecution on public interest grounds — Was the Crown’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion an abuse of process? — Standard for abuse of process requires egregious conduct — R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16 — Decision to stay prosecution upheldAdministrative law — Judicial review — Extension of time — Appellant filed application for judicial review one day late — Application judge refused extension of time, citing weak merits of the application — Did the application judge err in refusing to grant an extension of time? — Extension of time requires strong justification and reasonable merits — Decision to deny extension upheldAdministrative law — Judicial review — Merits of application — Appellant challenged Crown’s prosecutorial discretion as abuse of process — Application judge found merits of judicial review application weak — Did the application judge err in concluding the merits were weak? — Standard for abuse of process requires egregious conduct — Application judge’s conclusion upheld

Civil procedure — Jurisdiction — Forum selection clause — Standard of review — Appellants sought to stay proceedings in Ontario based on lack of jurisdiction or a forum selection clause favoring a French court — Did the motion judge err in concluding Ontario had jurisdiction and declining to enforce the forum selection clause? — Standard of review for jurisdictional rulings and forum selection clauses is palpable and overriding error absent an extricable error of lawEvidence — Jurisdictional analysis — Pleadings and evidence — Appellants argued that the plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish jurisdiction — Did the motion judge err in assessing the sufficiency of the pleadings and evidence? — Jurisdictional analysis requires pleadings to assert core elements of a cause of action and establish a connection to OntarioConstruction — Emergency generators — Alleged catastrophic failure — Claims arose from the failure of emergency generators at a hospital in Ontario — Did the alleged torts occurring in Ontario establish jurisdiction? — Jurisdiction established where the tort occurred in Ontario, including where damage was sustainedContracts — Forum selection clause — Applicability and enforceability — Appellants relied on a forum selection clause in a contract assigning jurisdiction to a French court — Did the motion judge err in finding the clause inapplicable and unenforceable? — Forum selection clauses must be proven valid, clear, enforceable, and applicable to the cause of action