A. Hussain

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore his action to the trial list after it was struck for delay.

The action, which arose from a 2012 incident alleging anti-Black racism during a fraud investigation, had been administratively dismissed in 2019 and struck from the trial list in 2020.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the extensive delays, which were largely due to counsel's inattention.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendants would suffer prejudice due to fading memories over the ten-year period since the incident.

The motion was denied and the action was dismissed.

The accused was arrested for armed robbery following a high-speed police chase and foot pursuit.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 7, s. 10(a), and s. 10(b) rights due to the arresting officer's use of force and a delay of over seven hours in facilitating access to counsel.

The court dismissed the s. 7 and s. 10(a) claims, finding the force used was reasonable and the short delay in advising him of the reasons for arrest was justified.

However, the court found a serious breach of the implementational component of s. 10(b), as the police failed to take proactive steps to facilitate access to counsel while the accused was at the hospital and unjustifiably delayed access at the police station.

The determination of the appropriate remedy was deferred to sentencing.

Four co-accused were tried for their alleged roles in a coordinated jewellery store robbery and a preceding distraction shooting.

The Crown relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including covert video surveillance, intercepted communications, and DNA.

The court acquitted Hadi of all charges due to reasonable doubt regarding his identification from video evidence.

Mitsakis and Bangura were convicted of conspiracy, robbery, and firearms offences related to the distraction shooting, as DNA and circumstantial evidence proved their involvement.

Mohamed was acquitted of robbery but convicted of being an accessory after the fact, dangerous driving, and fleeing from police after he attempted to escape the arrest scene in a vehicle containing evidence.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for the deficiency owing on an investment loan after the defendant defaulted.

The defendant alleged fraud by his investment advisor, claimed the advisor was an agent of the plaintiff, and raised the defence of non est factum, arguing he did not receive proper independent legal advice.

The court found no evidence of an agency relationship between the plaintiff and the advisor, noted the defendant signed an independent legal advice certificate, and rejected the non est factum defence.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the deficiency and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.