Alexander Sosna

The appellant, Patience Meadows, appealed his conviction for Assault Causing Bodily Harm.

The trial judge had found Meadows guilty, relying significantly on an utterance made by Meadows as circumstantial evidence of an intent for "payback" inconsistent with self-defence.

On appeal, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that Meadows made the utterance and that the Crown's failure to cross-examine on it did not breach the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

However, the appellate court found that the trial judge erred by concluding that the utterance had no other reasonable inference than an intent for physical retribution.

The court identified alternative reasonable inferences, such as an intent to pursue legal action or an expression of anger, which were consistent with innocence.

As the Crown failed to neutralize these alternative interpretations, the conviction could not stand beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

The offender pled guilty to historical indecent assault committed against a 12-year-old boy between 1968 and 1973.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was legally available because the corresponding modern offence of sexual interference did not statutorily bar it.

However, applying the principles from Friesen, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate given the need for denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months in custody followed by 12 months of probation.

The plaintiff, Stephanie Gilbraith, suffered a severe eye injury from an egg thrown from a speeding, unidentified vehicle.

She sought coverage under her father's OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage endorsement with Intact Insurance Company and from the Superintendent of Financial Services for uninsured automobile coverage.

Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the injury did not "arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile." The court dismissed the motions, finding that the plaintiff met both the "purpose test" (transporting passengers and cargo is an ordinary use of a vehicle) and the "modified causation test" (the vehicle's speed significantly increased the egg's impact and the likelihood of severe injury, establishing an unbroken chain of causation).

The court concluded there was a genuine issue for trial.

The plaintiff, N.K.P. Painting Inc., contracted with the defendants, Lamb Dundas Corp. and 319 Carlaw Inc., for painting and wall coverings.

Disputes arose over invoices for "extras." The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment regarding 37 specific invoices, arguing that agreements had been reached on their payment.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that no final agreements were made and that the motion was inappropriate given the need to assess credibility in the context of the entire litigation.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that a genuine issue of credibility existed regarding the alleged agreements, which could only be fully assessed at trial.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of beneficial ownership and transfer of title for a property, or alternatively, damages for unjust enrichment, claiming a written lease and a purchase agreement.

The defendants denied these claims, asserting the documents were fraudulently prepared by the plaintiff and that she was merely a tenant under a verbal agreement.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, concluding that the documents supporting her claims were fraudulently created by her.

Both claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Jeffrey Bradfield, sought a declaration of entitlement to recover judgment against the defendant insurer, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company (RSA), under section 258 of the Insurance Act.

The action arose from a motor vehicle collision where the insured, Devecseri, was in breach of his M2 driver's license condition (zero blood alcohol).

Bradfield argued that RSA had waived its right to rely on the policy violation or was estopped from doing so due to its conduct in defending the Estate for three years without a reservation of rights.

The court found that RSA's failure to obtain the Coroner's report despite being directed to, and its subsequent defense of the claim for three years, amounted to a waiver by conduct.

Prejudice to the insured was presumed due to the delay.

The court declared Bradfield entitled to recover $800,000 from RSA.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that required it to contribute to the maintenance and repair costs of a haul route in a neighbouring municipality as a condition of its quarry licence.

The moving party argued the OMB lacked jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Municipal Act, and related regulations to impose such a condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its home statutes and related legislation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action or, alternatively, to compel the plaintiff to answer discovery questions and produce transcripts from examinations for discovery in three prior motor vehicle accident actions.

The plaintiff had sustained injuries in previous accidents, and the defendants argued that the prior discovery transcripts were necessary to assess the overlap of injuries with the current action.

The court found that the interests of justice outweighed any prejudice, compelling the production of the prior transcripts under Rule 30.1.01(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion to dismiss the action was denied due to a lack of submissions on that specific point.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy, and arson, brought a Charter application to exclude cell phone records obtained by police through "tower dump" production orders.

The applicants argued the warrants violated their section 8 rights due to their broad scope and lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the initial tower dump warrants breached section 8 as they were based on speculation rather than reasonable grounds.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the police acted in good faith, the subsequent discovery of the specific phone numbers was inevitable due to a lawful "Mr. Big" confession, and society's interest in adjudicating a serious murder charge on its merits strongly favoured admission.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, John Jansen and Britaney Hall, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 39 months and 13 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted defence-attributable delays, including Jansen's explicit waiver of 2.5 months and Hall's 6-month delay due to a certiorari application and changes in preliminary hearing instructions.

After accounting for discrete unexpected events, the net delay for Jansen was approximately 35 months and for Hall approximately 27.5 months.

The court found the case to be moderately complex and applied the Jordan transitional exception, concluding that the Crown's reliance on the previous R. v. Morin framework was reasonable.

Both applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01 motion seeking an order barring the plaintiff from advancing personal injury damages arising from the death of her dog, arguing that psychiatric injury to the owner was not reasonably foreseeable and was too remote in law.

The plaintiff alleged negligent dispensing of medication caused the dog’s death and resulted in severe emotional trauma, nervous shock, and economic loss.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the damages were unrecoverable and that issues of foreseeability, duty of care, and psychiatric injury required determination on a full evidentiary record.

The motion to strike the personal injury claims was dismissed.

However, the court granted the defendants’ alternative request for further examination for discovery and related production concerning newly disclosed economic loss reports.

A home builder sued purchasers for breach of a cost-plus construction contract after the defendants terminated the project before completion.

The defendants alleged breaches including cost overruns, delay, improper billing, and reliance on the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The court held the construction contract and the agreement of purchase and sale formed one integrated real estate transaction, rendering the Consumer Protection Act inapplicable.

The court found the defendants terminated the contract without cause and breached restrictive covenants requiring completion of construction within one year.

Damages were limited to unpaid invoiced work already performed, as the builder failed to prove lost profits from the abandoned project.

In a murder prosecution, the Crown sought to admit multiple statements made by the accused during police interviews and at the scene of a medical emergency involving a child.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a voir dire examining voluntariness under the confessions rule and the accused’s right to silence.

Some statements were admitted where the accused attended voluntarily and spoke without coercion, while other statements were excluded where police interrogation ignored repeated assertions of the right to remain silent or involved oppressive questioning.

The ruling provides a contextual analysis of voluntariness and the interaction between the confessions rule and Charter protections.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of firearms while subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition order contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defence sought a conditional sentence based on rehabilitation efforts and compliance with bail conditions over several years.

The Crown argued that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence given the deliberate breach of a lifetime prohibition order and the presence of stolen firearms and ammunition.

The court held that imposing a conditional sentence would constitute an error in principle because it would inadequately address denunciation and deterrence for breaches of weapons prohibition orders.

A custodial sentence was imposed together with probation and a forfeiture order.

The plaintiffs sought damages following a violent assault that occurred outside a bar where the primary plaintiff was attacked by three individuals and sustained significant physical and psychological injuries.

Evidence established ongoing medical complications including concussion symptoms, psychological trauma, and employment loss.

Family members advanced claims under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship arising from the injuries.

Following an assessment hearing on damages, the court awarded general and punitive damages to the injured plaintiff and derivative damages to family members.

Costs were also awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a civil trial, the court issued an amended judgment after it was brought to its attention that the claim against one defendant had previously been settled without costs at a pre‑trial conference.

Counsel had failed to advise the court of the settlement before judgment was rendered.

As a result, portions of the earlier decision that addressed findings relating to that defendant were vacated and set aside.

The amendment corrected the judgment to reflect that the settled defendant should not have been included in those findings.