Alina Sklar

Following a joint trial, both appellants challenged convictions for possession of cocaine for trafficking and related proceeds offences, largely on factual grounds.

The court found no basis to interfere with the trial findings.

Leave to appeal sentence for one appellant was granted but dismissed on the merits.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent corporation's solicitor of record on the grounds that the lawyer was taking instructions exclusively from two individuals with significant conflicts of interest relative to the corporation.

The applicant sought the appointment of an inspector to investigate the corporation's financial affairs, suspecting misappropriation of funds by a director and treasurer.

The court found that the two individuals instructing the lawyer had glaring conflicts of interest, creating a substantial risk of impaired representation and compromising the integrity of the administration of justice.

The court ordered the removal of the solicitor and required the corporation to retain new counsel with unconficted instructing parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings in a sexual assault case, finding that the premature disclosure of defence materials to the complainant’s counsel was an innocent error and did not result in prejudice to trial fairness.

The court held that a stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy reserved for the clearest of cases and that alternative remedies were available.

The matter was remitted for trial before a different judge.

The applicant, Roger Boissé, sought to exclude DNA evidence and/or stay proceedings under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 10(b), 15, and 16.

The core of the application concerned the validity of his consent to provide a DNA sample, arguing it was not informed or voluntary due to linguistic issues (English consent form for a French speaker) and alleged police coercion.

The court found that the Crown successfully demonstrated that the consent was informed and voluntary, and that no Charter rights were violated.

Specifically, the court determined that the applicant was not detained, had prior legal counsel, and understood his rights despite the language challenges.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the DNA evidence was deemed admissible for trial.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing that the Crown's decision to proceed by direct indictment, bypassing a preliminary inquiry, constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant, a French speaker, contended that this decision was necessitated by the provincial court's inability to schedule a French preliminary inquiry within a reasonable timeframe, thereby violating his linguistic rights under the Criminal Code.

The court found that while there is no absolute right to a preliminary inquiry, the applicant was deprived of its ancillary benefits due to his choice to be tried in French, which constituted a systemic violation of his right to equal access to justice in his language.

The court concluded that this systemic issue amounted to an abuse of process, warranting a stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The incident occurred after the appellant, the complainant, and her partner returned to a residence after drinking.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony as illogical and accepted the complainant's evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) principles, assessing credibility, and refusing an adjournment for a Seaboyer application.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and there were no errors of law.

The applicant condominium corporation brought a compliance application against the respondent unit owner, who suffered from a hoarding disorder.

The parties resolved the underlying application by consent order but could not agree on costs.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $37,407.79.

The court found that while the respondent was not morally blameworthy, the innocent unit owners should not bear the cost of compelling compliance.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000, reducing the requested amount due to duplication, unnecessary steps, and unrecoverable expenses.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring him to post $20,000 in security for costs.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred in finding he was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and in concluding the order was just.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Master's factual conclusion regarding residency, including the plaintiff's limited time in Ontario, lack of assets, and intention to return to Malaysia.

The court also held the Master made no error of law, having properly balanced the plaintiff's access to justice against the defendants' need for protection from an uncollectible costs award.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant in contempt of court for violating freezing orders issued following a trial that found the defendant liable for a $7.3 million fraud.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual knowledge of the clear and unequivocal orders, yet intentionally failed to disclose his worldwide assets and actively dissipated hundreds of thousands of dollars to offshore accounts and third parties.

The defendant was found guilty of civil contempt and sentenced to 50 days of incarceration, with a subsequent hearing scheduled to determine if he could purge his contempt and mitigate his final sentence.