Aitken

At the commencement of a child protection trial, the mother disclosed that her father and paternal grandmother identified with the Algonquin First Nation.

The court adjourned the trial to hear a motion on whether the children were 'First Nations children' under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Finding uncontroverted evidence of the children's Algonquin heritage, the court determined they were First Nations children.

The court declared a mistrial to ensure the relevant band was served with notice and given the opportunity to participate, emphasizing the importance of reconciliation and First Nations' rights in child welfare proceedings.

The accused was found guilty of obstructing a peace officer after concealing his involvement in a fatal collision between his pickup truck and a cyclist.

The accused repaired his vehicle and hid from police for several days out of fear.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victim's family against the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and otherwise positive character.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, including a curfew and 100 hours of community service.

The accused, a public servant at Library and Archives Canada, was charged under s. 80(1)(b) of the Financial Administration Act with making opportunity for another person to defraud the government in relation to the procurement of IT consulting services.

The Crown alleged that the accused's communications with a vendor gave the vendor an unfair competitive advantage and enabled bid-rigging.

The court found that while the accused's conduct may have reduced the openness and transparency of the procurement process, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions created an opportunity to defraud the government of public money or that he had the requisite mens rea.

The accused was found not guilty.

The plaintiffs, a commercial real estate broker and his company, brought an action against the defendant brokerage firm seeking a declaration that their independent contractor agreement was terminated without cause, thereby forgiving a $225,000 loan.

The defendant counterclaimed for repayment of the loan, alleging the plaintiff terminated the agreement or was terminated for default.

The court rectified the agreement to include a mistakenly omitted provision regarding the plaintiff's leadership role and analyzed the interpretation of the plaintiff's role as the Ottawa Practice Lead for investments, finding that no strict $10 million ceiling was placed on the plaintiff's transactions.

The applicant, charged with conspiracy and drug trafficking offences following a complex police investigation, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 60 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and transitional provisions, deducting periods of defence waiver and delay caused by discrete exceptional events, including a mistrial and a change of lead counsel.

The court concluded that the remaining delay was justified by the exceptional complexity of the case and the parties' reasonable reliance on the previous Morin framework.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to remove construction brackets and work platforms that encroached on the plaintiffs' property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as damages could compensate for the construction delay, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, who needed the platforms to complete their building.

The applicant, who was convicted of manslaughter, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing that the delay of approximately six years and seven months from the date of charge to the anticipated end of his trial was unreasonable under s. 11(b).

The court applied the Jordan framework and determined that the delay attributable to certiorari proceedings and appeals therefrom should be excluded from the calculation.

The court found that the net delay was well below the 30-month ceiling.

Alternatively, even if the appellate delay was included, deductions for defence delay and exceptional circumstances (including discrete events and case complexity) brought the delay below the ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter for his role in a home invasion and robbery that resulted in the shooting death of a 19-year-old victim.

The accused provided information and assistance to the perpetrators but was not present during the home invasion and did not have subjective foresight of death.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of a planned home invasion for greed against mitigating factors including the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, and adherence to bail conditions over five years.

The accused was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, less 17 months' credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendants sought costs following a motion regarding a sealing order and restricted production of a document.

The court found that the plaintiff acted unreasonably by refusing to consider an informal proposal and a formal offer to settle that mirrored the eventual order.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis from the date the informal proposal was made.

The plaintiffs sued the Ottawa Police Services Board and several officers for negligent investigation, false arrest, and Charter breaches following a dramatic police raid on their home.

The raid stemmed from a long-standing neighbourhood dispute over a drainage pipe, which led an investigating officer to obtain a public safety warrant and arrest the plaintiff for mischief and intimidation.

The court found the officer's investigation was negligent, as he failed to interview key witnesses or consider the lack of urgency.

The court also held the arrest was unlawful and the search violated section 8 of the Charter due to material omissions in the warrant application and the unreasonable use of a SWAT team.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for false arrest, negligent investigation, wrongful seizure of firearms, and Charter breaches.

The plaintiff corporation sought a sealing order and a 'counsel eyes only' order for a 34-page document containing sensitive financial information.

The document had previously been disclosed to the individual defendant during family law proceedings involving the plaintiff's principal.

The court granted the sealing order to protect the plaintiff's commercial interests and the integrity of the government procurement process.

On consent, the corporate defendant was denied access to the document.

However, the court refused to deny the individual defendant access, finding that he needed to see the document to ensure trial fairness and to respond to the plaintiff's allegations.

During a trial, the Crown sought to introduce intercepted telephone conversations to show the state of mind of the witnesses, rather than for the truth of their contents.

The defence objected, arguing the Crown must first attempt to refresh the witnesses' memories or establish past recollection recorded.

The court ruled that the intercepted communications were admissible as real evidence without a preliminary voir dire or the need to exhaust the witnesses' memories, allowing the Crown to play the recordings and ask the witnesses to comment.

The Crown sought to admit out-of-court statements made by two accomplices who refused to testify at the accused's trial for second degree murder.

The accomplices had previously given statements to police and one had testified at his own trial.

Applying the principled approach to hearsay, the court found that the police statements met the test for threshold reliability due to corroborating evidence and circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

However, the court excluded the prior trial testimony of one accomplice, finding that the leading cross-examination by the Crown at that trial undermined its reliability and admission would negatively impact trial fairness.

The accused was convicted of human trafficking, assault, uttering death threats, and related offences involving a young woman.

The court considered the accused's lengthy criminal record, particularly concerning violence against women, and his lack of respect for court orders.

Applying the Tang factors, the court noted the accused exerted control through violence and financial dependency, though the operation was small.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years, granting 25 months of credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 35 months to serve.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for drug trafficking charges.

The applicant argued that the Justice of the Peace erred in law and that the proposed use of electronic monitoring constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found that while the Justice of the Peace made some errors of law warranting intervention, the electronic monitoring proposal did not amount to a material change.

Upon conducting a fresh review, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet the reverse onus, finding detention was necessary on all three grounds due to flight risk, likelihood of reoffending, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The defendants, a church and its lead pastor, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim against the pastor in his personal capacity.

The plaintiffs had sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence regarding an unregistered educational program run by the church.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision because the statement of claim did not specifically plead a separate claim against the pastor in his personal capacity, contrary to established case law.

The defendant's motion for leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim and requiring the defendant to answer discovery refusals was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $7,672.26 on a partial indemnity basis for the written motion.

The court found the plaintiffs' docketed hours excessive and noted the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for solicitor negligence.

The plaintiff had retained the defendant to pursue a medical malpractice claim, but the defendant advised her to discontinue the action after an expert concluded there was no case.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages, alleging breach of trust and negligence, particularly regarding the administrative dismissal of her underlying action.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing, breach of standard of care, or damages caused by the defendant.

The self-represented plaintiff sued a women's shelter, the city's public health department, and an infectious disease specialist, alleging she contracted active tuberculosis from another shelter resident and was subsequently misdiagnosed and mistreated.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to adduce any expert medical evidence to support her claims of medical malpractice or to prove she was exposed to an infectious person.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, W.O. Stinson & Son Limited, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their Statement of Claim and required the defendant to answer questions refused at discovery.

The underlying action involved an oil leak from a tank installed by the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision regarding the amendment of pleadings or the discovery refusals.

Furthermore, the court held that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general importance, as the issues were specific to the facts and pleadings of the case.