|
Appeal-Judicial Review - Inconsistent Conclusions. Sparks v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program
In Sparks v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court cited 'inconsistent fact findings' as an error of law, here findings regarding the issue of non-compliance with medical treatment:[40] Here, the SBT appears to have inferred that Sparks could stop using marijuana but chose not to do so, and to have inferred that because of that choice his impairments were not substantial. This is stereotypical reasoning, inconsistent with SBT jurisprudence, and an error in law.
Issue 3: The SBT based its decision on contradictory determinations
[41] This issue also arises from the manner in which the SBT dealt with the appellant’s substance use disorder. At para. 19 of the SBT’s decision, the tribunal found that Sparks’ impairments were not “substantial ... because the Appellant was not in full compliance with treatment prescribed”, i.e., to cease using marijuana as his physician had recommended. But at para. 22 of the decision, the SBT held that he was not substantially impaired because he was able to overcome an addiction to Percocet with the use of suboxone, leading to the conclusion, at para. 23, that Sparks’ “extensive use of cannabis” weighed against a finding of substantial impairment. In other words, according to the SBT, Sparks’ impairments were not substantial because he was not compliant with treatment for marijuana, and because he was compliant with treatment for Percocet. Such inconsistent findings are an error of law: R. v. R. (D.), 1996 CanLII 207 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291, at para. 50; Trajkovich v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources), 2009 ONCA 898, O.J. No. 5466, at para. 18. . R. v. Nguyen
In R. v. Nguyen (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers the issue of 'inconsistent verdicts' as an appeal ground:[45] Mr. Nguyen argues that the trial judge reached inconsistent verdicts in finding him guilty of possessing the drugs and proceeds, but not guilty of possessing the firearm. He relies on the decision in R. v. Pittiman, 2006 SCC 9, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 381, at para. 8, which holds that “when the evidence on one count is so wound up with the evidence on the other that it is not logically separable, inconsistent verdicts may be held to be unreasonable.” Mr. Nguyen argues that in this case, the evidence of the contents of all of the objects in unit #411 is so wound up together that the trial judge’s verdicts are conflicting. Put otherwise, he is arguing that it was not available on the evidence for the trial judge to have convicted Mr. Nguyen of possessing the drugs and the proceeds, but not the gun.
[46] I would reject this ground of appeal. There was ample evidence supporting the finding that Mr. Nguyen was involved in the drug trafficking enterprise that was obviously being conducted out of the stash house. In the circumstances I have described his knowledge and control of the drugs and proceeds in the stash house could not seriously be questioned.
|
