Ontario (Attorney General) v. G

Moldaver J. — I have two reasons for refusing a stay.

First, I note that Justice Roberts of the Ontario Court of Appeal previously refused to grant a motion seeking the same relief now sought by the Attorney General of Ontario in this Court.

In Esmail v. Petro-Canada, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 3, Sopinka J. observed that “[i]t is only in special circumstances that successive applications to a judge of the court appealed from and a judge of this Court should be permitted”: para. 2. Having reviewed the record and the reasons of Roberts J.A., I see no special circumstances here that would warrant a re-examination by me of her decision.

Second, and in any event, the Crown has not made out a tenable case for irreparable harm.

The respondent’s track record over the past 17 years has been exemplary, and it provides cogent evidence that there is little, if any, chance of him committing a sexual offence prior to the determination of the leave application, and if leave is granted, the disposition of the appeal. That being so, I see no apparent reason why he should be deprived of his s. 15(1) right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the interim. In particular, I adopt the words of Doherty J.A. at para. 155 of his reasons in which he states: “. . . as I read this record, it is difficult to envision a constitutionally-compliant legislative scheme that would not result in [the respondent] being removed from the registries and exempted from the requirement of any further compliance with them”: 2019 ONCA 264, 145 O.R. (3d) 161.

Accordingly, the motion for a stay is dismissed without costs.