Alexander Heath

This costs endorsement addresses the application for costs by Alexander Heath, former counsel for Wendy Palma, following his successful motion to be removed as counsel of record.

The court found Ms. Palma's conduct in refusing Mr. Heath's voluntary termination of retainer to be unreasonable, contributing to a pattern of delay.

Applying factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the parties' conduct, the low complexity of the motion, and the absence of Ms. Palma's submissions on ability to pay, the court awarded Mr. Heath fixed costs of $2400 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The accused, H.P., was charged with five sexual offences against his step-daughter, K.T., including sexual assault, sexual exploitation, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching, spanning from June 2018 to February 2020.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant's testimony versus the accused's denials.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling and reliable, supported by an audio recording, and rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and fabricated.

H.P. was found guilty on all five counts.

The defendant, R.K., faced six counts of sexual assault against his former wife.

The trial focused on whether the prosecution proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling but incredible, lacking precision and detail, and potentially influenced by motives related to cultural blame and a civil lawsuit.

The friend's testimony contradicted the complainant's narrative regarding the location of the alleged assaults.

While the defendant's testimony was unconvincing, the court could not ascertain what transpired and was left with a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of lands and payment on a defaulted vendor take-back mortgage.

The defendant opposed the motion, claiming equitable set-off based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the property's condition.

The court found that the defendant was estopped from raising this defence because the plaintiff had previously obtained an unchallenged default judgment in Small Claims Court regarding a deposit for the same property.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendant, a retired teacher and educational mentor, was charged with common assault for allegedly touching the complainant, an 11-year-old boy, on his buttock without consent during a mentoring session.

The complainant and his parents had consented to various sensory-based therapeutic touch techniques as part of the defendant's mentoring practice.

The Crown alleged the defendant touched the complainant's buttock over his pants without consent.

The defendant denied the allegation, testifying that he placed his hand on the complainant's back while demonstrating a "shield over the heart" technique to help the complainant cope with bullying.

The court found the complainant credible but unreliable in his memory, and found the defendant's denial sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted.

The applicant sought to transfer her criminal trial from the Ontario Court of Justice at Orangeville to the Davis Courthouse in Brampton pursuant to Section 599 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was charged with five criminal offences including impaired operation and breach of probation arising from an incident in the Town of Caledon.

The court dismissed the motion, upholding a longstanding regional policy established in 1997 that transfers Caledon criminal trials to Orangeville.

The court found that the policy was expedient to the ends of justice and that the applicant's personal inconvenience did not warrant departure from the established practice.

The defendant, Anthony Botelho, was charged with dangerous driving while street racing causing death.

The Crown alleged that Botelho's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care and caused the victim's death.

The defence argued that the driving did not rise to the level of dangerous driving.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Botelho was operating a vehicle in a race or that his driving was dangerous and caused the victim's death.

The court highlighted issues with witness reliability, the inadmissibility of certain expert testimony, and the unreliability of video-based speed calculations, noting a significant evidentiary gap due to the police's failure to retrieve Event Data Recorder (EDR) information.

Botelho was acquitted.

The accused was charged with breaching a probation order and recognizance by associating with a named person on two separate occasions.

On the first incident (March 30, 2012), the accused was observed in conversation with the prohibited person at a retail store.

On the second incident (April 2, 2012), the prohibited person was present in the accused's apartment.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the defence called no evidence.

The court found that the accused intended to communicate with the prohibited person on the first occasion, establishing the necessary mens rea for breach of probation.

On the second occasion, the court found that the identity of the person in the apartment was established beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, including witness identification, a health card, and corroborating facts.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.