Alfred J. O'Marra

The appellant appealed a decision of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board upholding the denial of OHIP coverage for an out-of-country residential treatment program for mental health and substance abuse.

The Board found that equivalent services were available in Ontario and that the appellant would not face a delay resulting in death or medically significant irreversible tissue damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions regarding the essential elements of the treatment and the availability of timely equivalent services in Ontario were reasonable.

Taylor Griffith was found guilty of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, trafficking in cocaine and crack cocaine, and failing to comply with probation and firearms prohibition orders.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous combination of guns and drugs, the quantity of drugs, and Griffith's prior record.

Mitigating factors included his youth, family support, remorse, and participation in rehabilitation programs while in custody.

The court also addressed a Charter violation claim for sentence reduction, finding no additional harm or prejudice connected to the breach of delaying contact with counsel.

A global sentence of 6 years imprisonment was imposed, with credit for 22 months of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 4 years and 2 months incarceration, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA order.

Vladimir Levine brought an application to determine if Mikhail Titkine, a non-party to the underlying family law litigation, was also a 'client' for the purpose of assessing the respondent lawyer's accounts under section 3 of the Solicitors Act.

The court applied the broader definition of 'client' from section 15 of the Solicitors Act, which includes a person liable to pay the solicitor's bill.

Based on evidence that Titkine signed the retainer agreement, accepted financial responsibility, and made payments, the court found Titkine was indeed a client.

Levine's application for a declaration that he was the only client was dismissed, and the respondent's request that Titkine be considered a client was granted.

Following a motion where the plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining a Mareva injunction but successful in obtaining an order for interim possession of a jewellery set, both parties sought costs.

The court found that success was substantially divided and the costs sought by the plaintiff were excessive.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01, the court ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis of $45,399.84 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's slip and fall action.

The trial was conducted under the simplified procedure rules and damages had been agreed at $20,000.

The court found the defendant's claimed costs excessive and disproportionate to the agreed damages and the complexity of the case.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent employee $22,084 in a wrongful dismissal action under the Simplified Rules.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in proceeding by summary judgment and in determining the issue of mitigation without cross-examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there were no genuine issues of credibility and that the respondent's mitigation efforts were reasonable.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to set aside the costs order, as the motion judge had failed to hear costs submissions.

The defendant, Suzana Vidinovski, was found guilty after a jury trial of three counts of fraud over $5,000 and four counts of uttering forged documents.

The offences, committed between 2012 and 2014 while she was an administrative assistant, involved fraudulently obtaining approximately $81,000 from her employer, Core Realty Group Inc., through forged cheques and letters of direction.

The court considered her prior criminal record for similar offences and the significant breach of trust.

The Crown sought a prison term of 4-5 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day or 8-10 months incarceration.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the lack of exceptional mitigating circumstances and the need for general and specific deterrence and denunciation.

Vidinovski was sentenced to 18 months incarceration, 2 years probation, a restitution order of $44,556.44, and a DNA order.

The plaintiff, Istvan Hirosik, brought a summary judgment motion seeking long-term disability benefits from Canada Life Assurance Company, along with aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages.

The central issue was whether Hirosik's current lumbar spine disability qualified as a new claim or a recurrent disability under the policy, given his complex medical history.

The defendant argued the motion was inappropriate due to insufficient medical evidence to assess disability, causation, and credibility.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the medical issues too complex for summary judgment without a complete medical record and expert evidence, and directed the matter to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff sought a worldwide Mareva injunction to freeze assets and, alternatively, an order for interim possession of a jewellery set of identified diamonds.

The court denied the Mareva injunction, finding the plaintiff did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against all respondents or a real risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court granted the interim possession order, finding the criteria under Rule 44.01 were met, as the plaintiff demonstrated lawful entitlement to the property and unlawful detention by the respondents.

The jewellery set was ordered to be held by the Toronto Police Service pending criminal matters.

Ian Bullens was found guilty after trial by jury of offering to transfer a firearm and subsequently found guilty by judge alone of breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered his extensive criminal record, prior firearm offences, and acknowledged opiate addiction.

The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 8 to 10 years, while the defence proposed 4.5 to 5.5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, which was reduced to 5 years and 8 months after applying 22 months of pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearm prohibition and a DNA collection order.

Taylor Griffith, charged with firearm and drug trafficking offenses, applied to exclude evidence seized during his arrest, alleging violations of his s. 8, s. 9, and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the arrest and incidental search lawful, with objectively reasonable grounds based on police surveillance and observed hand-to-hand transactions.

However, a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) occurred due to a delay in facilitating contact with a lawyer until after search warrants were executed.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that while the police conduct in delaying counsel was serious, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was minimal as the evidence (loaded firearm and drugs) was seized prior to the breach and was real, reliable, and crucial.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages after tripping and falling in a parking lot owned by the defendant.

She alleged that she tripped over an insufficiently marked and maintained speed bump.

The court found that the speed bump's markings complied with industry standards and provided adequate warning.

Furthermore, the plaintiff could not objectively prove what caused her fall, relying only on speculation after returning to the scene weeks later.

The action was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of an appeal by Turano’s Home Improvement against a Master’s Report in favour of Zittell.

Zittell, as the successful party, claimed partial indemnity costs of $24,130.61.

Turano’s Home Improvement argued these costs were excessive, proposing $15,000.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found Zittell’s claimed costs excessive given the non-complex issues and the amount recovered ($39,583.11).

The court fixed costs at $15,000 plus disbursements and HST, totaling $16,756.61, payable by Turano’s Home Improvement.

Dorrin Chang was found guilty by a jury of two counts of trafficking firearms and three counts of drug offenses (trafficking heroin, possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, and possession of hydromorphone).

He failed to attend sentencing and was sentenced in absentia.

The court considered his criminal record, the nature of the offenses, and sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

A total sentence of 9 years incarceration was imposed, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

The plaintiff/appellant, a contractor, appealed a Master's report that found them in breach of contract for deficient renovation work and awarded damages to the defendant/respondent.

The Master found numerous deficiencies, including the use of an unlicensed electrician and safety hazards, leading to a fundamental breach and repudiation of the contract.

The Superior Court reviewed the Master's findings on a palpable and overriding error standard, upholding the Master's conclusions regarding breach of contract, repudiation, and damages, and dismissing the appeal.

The five accused, charged with fraud and conspiracy related to a multi-million dollar tax avoidance scheme, brought applications for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was approximately 44 months.

The court dismissed the delay application, finding the delay justified by the exceptional complexity of the case, which involved voluminous disclosure and multiple accused, as well as transitional exceptional circumstances under the Jordan framework.

The court granted an adjournment for three accused to retain counsel but denied a severance application by the remaining two accused, emphasizing the strong presumption in favour of joint trials for alleged co-conspirators.

The accused held herself out as a registered nurse to administer Botox, dermal fillers, and chemical peels to several complainants.

The complainants suffered various injuries, including scarring, disfigurement, and allergic reactions.

The court found that the complainants' consent to the procedures was vitiated by the accused's fraudulent misrepresentation of her credentials.

The court held that the use of a syringe needle without valid consent constituted assault with a weapon.

The accused was found guilty of fraud, multiple counts of assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering threats.

The offender was sentenced for his role in a violent nighttime robbery of two victims in a public park.

The offender and his co-accused used an imitation firearm and a cleaver-like knife to threaten the victims, who were also subjected to gratuitous physical violence including being pistol-whipped, kicked, and punched.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the unprovoked violence and the offender's prior record against his rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years' incarceration, less 15 months of enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 33 months to serve.

The applicant, a foreign national subject to a removal order, applied for habeas corpus after being detained in a maximum security provincial jail for over four years pending removal.

The court found that while the length of detention was exceptional, its duration was not uncertain because the applicant's recent cooperation provided a reasonable prospect for removal, thus not violating sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

However, the court held that detaining the applicant in a maximum security facility with frequent lockdowns, rather than an immigration holding centre, was grossly disproportionate to his flight risk and constituted cruel and unusual treatment under section 12 of the Charter.

The court ordered his immediate transfer to an immigration holding centre.

The offender was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to an armed robbery committed by her son, having disposed of a sweater he wore during the crime.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence, while the defence requested a sentence of less than six months to preserve the offender's right to appeal a potential removal order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court applied a 1:1 credit for 157 days of pre-trial custody to avoid the draconian immigration consequences, sentencing the offender to one day in jail and 18 months of probation.