Cases

SCC Case Information

Summary

33007

Agnieska Wojtanowska, et al. v. Daniel Mustard, et al.

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords

Canadian charter - civil.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch) for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights - Civil procedure - Applicants had photos showing marijuana plants growing in their residence developed by Respondent Black Photo Corporation - Employees of Respondent Black Photo Corporation shared photographs with police - Applicants arrested - Charges against Applicants later dismissed - Applicants file civil action against Respondents - Applicants ordered by Superior Court to produce photographs to Respondents - Applicants refuse and file motion for leave to appeal to Divisional Court - Whether a balancing of the Applicants’ privacy and Charter rights should have been applied prior to ordering the production of photographs - Whether application of D.P. v. Wagg, [2004] O.J. No. 2053, (C.A.), to the judges’ exercise of discretion in this case consistent with Charter values - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8.

In 2001, the Applicants Wojtanowska and Weil brought some photographs taken inside their home to the Respondent Black Photo Corporation, commonly known as Black’s, to be developed. The photographs showed marijuana plants growing in Wojtanowska and Weil’s residence. Employees of Black’s turned copies of the photographs over to police who then obtained a search warrant. Wojtanowska and Weil were arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and other related offences. The charges were later dismissed. Wojtanowska andWeil commenced a civil action against the Respondents in which they alleged that the Respondents had violated their rights guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter, and their right to copyright in the photographs. They were ordered by the Superior Court to produce the photographs to the Respondents and to re-attend for examination for discovery. Wojtanowska and Weil refused and filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court. The Superior Court dismissed the motion.