Date: 20230719 Docket: T-1736-22 Citation: 2023 FC 985 Toronto, Ontario, July 19, 2023
Coherent Identifier 20.500.12592/50fpc5

Date: 20230719 Docket: T-1736-22 Citation: 2023 FC 985 Toronto, Ontario, July 19, 2023

19 July 2023

Summary

(3) In determining whether the logical connection between the verdict and the basis for the verdict is established, one looks to the evidence, the submissions of counsel and the history of the trial to determine the “live” issues as they emerged during the trial. [...] Did the Motions Judge err in determining that the Application is moot? [23] The Applicants argue that the Motions Judge erred in finding the Application moot, as there is a live controversy based on the fact that many of them face outstanding fines resulting from the violations of the OICs. [...] [47] The Motions Judge agreed with the Respondent that the Applicants can “seek a determination on the constitutionality of the impugned provisions” in the prosecutions regarding the outstanding fines. [...] The Applicants submitted that there are special circumstances in this case as the Motions Judge took the extraordinary step of reviewing the appellants’ written submissions in Spencer FCA to support his understanding of the case; namely, that the applicants had advanced an argument that the penal consequences of the impugned measures create a further adversarial relationship between the parties. [...] [78] In any event, the Applicants have failed to demonstrate any error on the part of the Motions Judge when he found that the presence of the outstanding prosecutions was insufficient to warrant an exercise of discretion based on the Borowski factors, and that the Applicants could seek a determination on the constitutionality of the impugned provisions in these prosecutions.

Pages
29
Published in
Canada