Adetayo Gboyega Akinyemi

The decision concerns the bail application of Matias Domingo Sanchez Nanuclef, who faces extradition to the United States for his alleged involvement in a $15 million jewellery store burglary in San Diego.

The court reviews the factual background, the legal onus for bail in extradition cases, and the proposed plan of release.

The application is denied on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, with the court finding that the applicant is not ordinarily resident in Canada, poses a flight risk, and that detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

This sentencing decision addresses possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, involving significant quantities of highly dangerous drugs.

The offender, Abdalaazim Malik Harun, pleaded guilty after trial commenced.

The Court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the societal harms of fentanyl and methamphetamine trafficking, while also considering the offender’s stable family support and lack of addiction.

The sentence imposed was 6.5 years on the fentanyl count and 5 years concurrent on the methamphetamine count, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court declined to grant additional Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence conditions absent evidence but allowed some mitigation for strict bail conditions (Downes credit).

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling and weapons prohibitions.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Solomon Nnadede, who was found guilty of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The assaults occurred three times over nine months against a vulnerable 21-year-old homeless refugee claimant who was financially and spiritually dependent on the offender, a church pastor.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the breach of trust, the manipulative context, and the substantial impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of criminal record, pro-social life, and efforts to support his family.

The court also addressed collateral immigration consequences, noting they cannot lead to a disproportionate sentence.

The Crown sought 8-9 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court sentenced the offender to 5 years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA sample, Sex Offender Registry registration, and a no-contact order.

The accused, Solomon Nnadede, was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant, MD, over a nine-month period.

The case turned on credibility and consent.

The complainant testified to three instances of forced vaginal penetration and other non-consensual sexual touching, asserting she eventually "gave up" fighting.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming all sexual activity was consensual based on an "understanding" where he provided financial support in exchange for sex.

The court rejected the accused's "understanding" as a valid defence for consent and found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on two counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual touching arising from allegations made by a complainant who had been placed in the accused's foster home.

The court considered the complainant's delayed disclosure, inconsistent accounts, admitted substance abuse, memory difficulties, head injuries, and apology letter retracting the allegations, alongside the accused's denial and evidence concerning his whereabouts.

Applying the criminal burden of proof and the credibility principles in W. (D.) and Dinardo, the court found the accused's evidence believable and held that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

Acquittals were entered on all counts.

The accused was charged with assaulting his ex-wife and threatening to kill her sister.

The Crown alleged the accused punched the complainant during a dispute over taking their youngest child out, and made graphic threats to kill the complainant's family.

The accused testified he intervened to protect the child from the complainant's physical discipline and denied both the assault and threats.

The court found reasonable doubt on both counts based on inconsistencies in the complainant's account to police, concerns regarding the timing and appearance of photographic evidence of alleged bruising, and corroborating evidence from a mutual friend regarding the complainant's motive for calling police.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment regarding three loan agreements.

The defendant admitted receiving $74,000 but disputed the interest payable, arguing the third agreement consolidated the first two.

The court found the third agreement was a novation that consolidated the loans and provided more time to pay in exchange for additional interest.

Although the short-term interest rate exceeded the criminal interest rate under s. 347 of the Criminal Code, the court exercised its remedial discretion to allow the $19,000 interest to stand, applying standard pre-judgment interest thereafter to avoid a windfall for the defendant.

The appellants retained the respondent paralegal firm for statutory accident benefits claims following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent orally represented that fees would only be paid from settlement proceeds, but the written retainer agreement contained a clause requiring payment of hourly fees if the representation was terminated.

After terminating the relationship, the respondent sued for fees and won in Small Claims Court.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that a contract induced by an oral misrepresentation inconsistent with the written terms cannot be enforced, especially in the context of legal retainers where the professional bears the burden of explaining any alterations to the payment structure.

The applicant, Mr. Adeniji, sought to set aside or vary a consent order requiring him to pay $20,000 in security for costs, alleging fraud by the respondent, Ms. Segbaya, and a change in circumstances (impecuniosity) caused by her actions.

Ms. Segbaya moved to dismiss Mr. Adeniji's application for his failure to pay the security for costs.

The court found that Mr. Adeniji failed to prove his impecuniosity or that Ms. Segbaya caused it, citing inconsistencies and lack of evidence.

Consequently, Mr. Adeniji's motion to set aside/vary was dismissed, and Ms. Segbaya's motion to dismiss Mr. Adeniji's application for non-compliance with the security for costs order was granted.

The court also ordered the release of funds Ms. Segbaya had paid into court and awarded costs to Ms. Segbaya.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination claim against a university and a department chair.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because it was filed more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination, which it determined was the date the applicant was asked to withdraw for academic reasons.

The Divisional Court found the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application as untimely was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a simplified rules action from Toronto to Thunder Bay.

The plaintiff's action claimed damages for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation arising from an arrest in Thunder Bay.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the events occurred in Thunder Bay, the community interest favoured Thunder Bay, and the convenience of parties and witnesses favoured Thunder Bay, the court granted the motion and ordered the transfer.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempted theft while armed with bear spray and wearing a mask with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The offences arose from a planned armed robbery attempt on Garda Security guards making a cash delivery of approximately $200,000 to a TD Bank.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of four to five years, while the defence sought a reformatory sentence of 18 months to two years less one day.

The court imposed a sentence of four years less pre-trial custody, with enhanced credit for 11 months of pre-trial custody at a rate of 1.5 months per month, resulting in a net sentence of 31.5 months.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture order, no-contact order with victims, and DNA order.

The accused were found guilty by a jury of offences related to the importation of approximately one kilogram of heroin from Thailand.

Prior to sentencing, one of the accused applied for an inquiry into a juror who had sent an email to Crown counsel after the verdict expressing admiration.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of pre-verdict communication or reasonable apprehension of bias.

On sentencing, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for heroin importation.

Igbinoba, who acted as a sophisticated conduit, was sentenced to 11 years.

Godwin, who was the intended recipient and more senior participant, was sentenced to 12 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order directing him to provide financial disclosure in a family law dispute regarding child support.

The court applied the test for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issues of general or public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

On a pre-trial evidentiary motion in a joint heroin importation prosecution, one accused sought to exclude evidence that a small quantity of heroin was found in his home during a search warrant execution.

The co-accused advanced a cut-throat defence and argued the evidence was relevant to show that the applicant, not the co-accused, planned and knowingly imported the heroin.

The court held that, although the Crown could not lead the evidence as propensity evidence, different considerations applied where a co-accused tendered it in support of full answer and defence.

With an appropriate limiting instruction, the prejudicial effect did not substantially outweigh the probative value, and the evidence was admissible.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, alleging repeated non-disclosure of past criminal convictions and trading in vehicles without registration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant did repeatedly fail to disclose past convictions on multiple applications, the Registrar failed to prove the allegations of unregistered vehicle sales.

The Tribunal concluded that the non-disclosure alone did not provide reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to grant the appellant registration as a motor vehicle salesperson only, subject to strict conditions including employment only by a franchised dealer and mandatory disclosure of any future charges or convictions.

Following the conclusion of a hearing, the Appellants brought a motion seeking leave to file post-hearing written submissions.

The Appellants argued that their counsel had rushed through oral submissions due to the late hour and omitted responses to certain evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting that both parties were explicitly offered the choice between oral and written submissions, chose oral submissions, and were assured they would not be rushed.

The Tribunal found that the request to file additional reasons was an afterthought.

The appellant, a permanent resident, was convicted of aggravated assault after burning her ten-year-old child with a hot iron.

She appealed her 20-month sentence, seeking a reduction to five months to preserve her right to appeal a removal order under immigration law.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred by failing to expressly consider the specific immigration consequences, the 20-month sentence remained fit and proportionate given the egregious breach of trust and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was convicted by a jury of robbery after luring the victim to a meeting under the pretext of purchasing marihuana and participating with accomplices in a planned robbery involving violence and the use of an imitation firearm.

Although the Crown alleged use of a real firearm, it conceded the evidence did not establish this aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt, removing the applicable mandatory minimum.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including planning, group participation, violence, and the use of an imitation firearm, against strong mitigating factors such as youth, lack of prior record, remorse, employment history, and positive community support.

Applying the principles in ss. 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence despite the offender’s strong rehabilitative prospects.

A 12‑month custodial sentence was found appropriate but reduced to account for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused appealed convictions for multiple counts of assault and theft under $5,000 arising from two late‑night group robberies of pedestrians.

The appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, and alternatively that the sentence of a suspended sentence with 30 months’ probation was unfit because the trial judge declined to grant a conditional discharge.

The court reviewed the standard governing appellate intervention for unreasonable verdicts and concluded the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence, including eyewitness identification, the discovery of stolen property at the appellant’s feet in the vehicle, and credibility findings rejecting the appellant’s testimony.

The court held that the trial judge was entitled to rely on the identification evidence and reject exculpatory testimony from both the appellant and a co‑accused attempting to minimize the appellant’s role.

The sentence was also upheld, with the court finding that a conditional discharge would have been contrary to the public interest given the planned and intimidating nature of the assaults and thefts.