Alex Sosna

The accused, the former Executive Director of a non-profit charity, was charged with fraud over $5,000 and breach of probation.

The Crown alleged he used corporate credit cards and cheques for unauthorized personal expenses, including hotels, sports equipment, and cash advances, totaling over $60,000.

The accused argued he had discretion over business expenses and that the Crown failed to prove the expenses were personal.

The court rejected the accused's arguments, finding the direct and circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the transactions were unauthorized personal expenses.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicants, jointly charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and arson, brought a pre-trial motion seeking leave to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on pre-trial publicity.

The media coverage included sensationalized reports of an alleged attempted prison break by one of the applicants.

The court found that despite the passage of time, the prominence and ready access to the coverage on the internet created an air of reality that the publicity could potentially undermine a prospective juror's impartiality.

The application was granted, and specific questions were approved to be put to the jury pool.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and arson following the discovery of his wife's charred body in their garage, applied to exclude a statement he made to police.

The court found that the two-and-a-half-hour police interview constituted an investigative detention, triggering the accused's Charter rights.

The police failed to properly inform the accused of his right to silence, the reasons for his detention, and his right to counsel, resulting in serious breaches of sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the statement under section 24(2), concluding that the breaches were deliberate and admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A young person convicted of first‑degree murder for causing the death of a police officer while fleeing a traffic stop was sentenced under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The accused, who was 15 at the time of the offence, survived the crash but was rendered a quadriplegic with profound lifelong medical needs.

The Crown sought the maximum youth sentence of 10 years with five years of open custody followed by four years of community supervision.

The court found the offender’s catastrophic disability, lack of prior record, demonstrated remorse, and low risk to reoffend constituted exceptional circumstances.

The judge concluded that incarceration would not meaningfully enhance accountability and that the correctional system had not demonstrated an ability to meet the offender’s extensive medical needs.

A one‑day custody component with credit for pre‑trial custody and a nine‑year conditional supervision order was imposed.

The Crown sought to admit a young child complainant’s statements to her mother and videotaped police interview as substantive evidence in a blended Khan and KGB voir dire after the child recanted and testified the allegations were a joke.

The court held that necessity was established, but threshold reliability was not.

The mother’s repeated and highly suggestive questioning, the child’s one-word acquiescent responses, the absence of corroborative physical evidence, the child’s multiple recantations to several sources, and deficiencies in the police interview process undermined trustworthiness.

The videotaped statement was further weakened by the interviewer’s failure to impress upon the child the importance of truth-telling or secure a meaningful promise to tell the truth.

The hearsay statements were inadmissible and, in any event, the court held it would have had reasonable doubt as to ultimate reliability; the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant contractor for breach of contract and under the Construction Lien Act for unpaid amounts relating to the supply and installation of structural steel.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff caused construction delays and failed to complete its work, requiring the defendant to intervene.

The court found that the plaintiff completed its contractual obligations within a reasonable time and that the defendant breached the contract by refusing to pay the balance owing.

The defendant's counterclaim for set-off was largely dismissed for lack of reliable evidence, and the plaintiff was awarded the balance of the contract price.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and other offences, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to the police's failure to retain a 2007 videotaped statement made by the complainant.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that the loss of the video was not due to unacceptable negligence.

Given that the complainant's credibility was the central issue and she had a history of recantations and perjury, the loss of the video irreparably prejudiced the applicant's ability to make full answer and defence.

The court concluded this was one of the clearest of cases and ordered a stay of proceedings on the sexual assault count.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder and assault causing bodily harm in relation to the death of his common-law partner's two-year-old son.

The child suffered extensive, repeated blunt force trauma while in the offender's care, culminating in fatal abdominal injuries.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for second-degree murder with a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the brutal breach of trust against a vulnerable infant.

A concurrent sentence of five years was imposed for the assault causing bodily harm.

In a reference to determine the distribution of proceeds from a mortgage sale, the first mortgagee sought to claim increased fees and expenses arising from amending agreements entered into with the mortgagor after the second mortgagee registered its charge.

The court held that the second mortgagee was not bound by the amending agreements, as it had no notice of them at the time of registration.

The first mortgagee was only entitled to claim fees specifically set out in the registered mortgage and standard charge terms.

The increased fees were disallowed and legal fees were reduced.

The applicant condominium corporation sought declarations that the respondent, a former director, breached his duties under the Condominium Act and should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The respondent brought a cross-application seeking the removal of other directors and claiming oppression.

The court found that the respondent breached his duties as a director by acting unilaterally, rendering the board dysfunctional, and failing to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent person.

However, the court declined to declare him a vexatious litigant or grant a sweeping injunction against him.

The respondent's cross-application was dismissed in its entirety, as the court found no bad faith by the other directors and no breach of the respondent's reasonable expectations to support an oppression claim.

The plaintiff purchased a swim spa from the defendant dealer, which was manufactured and distributed by the other defendants.

The plaintiff withheld $2,000 of the purchase price, claiming the installation was incomplete and the spa was defective and not fit for his intended purpose of a chlorine-free exercise environment.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and breach of implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding he unilaterally terminated the contract by preventing the dealer from completing the installation, and that the spa's subsequent breakdowns were likely due to the plaintiff's improper maintenance and winterization.

The court granted the dealer's counterclaim for the unpaid $1,800 balance.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of attempted murder, pointing a firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offender shot the victim multiple times over a drug debt.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the offender's lengthy and violent criminal record to be a significant aggravating factor, but concluded this was not the 'worst offence' requiring a life sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 16 years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 11 years and 4 months to be served.