Unlock 10 more sections of this judge’s background. Start your 7-day free trial.
Appeared as counsel in 77 cases (2013–2024)
8 total
Unregistered 2005 religious marriage deemed valid under s. 31 of the Marriage Act; subsequent 2023 marriage annulled.
The applicant sought a declaration under s. 31 of the Marriage Act that her 2005 religious marriage to the deceased was valid, despite the marriage licence never being registered.
The deceased and the applicant lived together as husband and wife for 18 years before the deceased, struggling with severe addiction, purportedly married the respondent in a civil ceremony in 2023.
The court found that the 2005 marriage was solemnized in good faith, the parties intended to comply with the Act, neither was disqualified, and they cohabited as a married couple.
The application was granted, the 2005 marriage was deemed valid, and the 2023 marriage to the respondent was declared void ab initio and annulled.
Application to restrict neighbour's right of way to pedestrian use and claim trespass damages dismissed.
The applicant neighbours sought declarations, injunctions, and damages to prevent the respondents from using an eight-foot right of way across the applicants' property for motor vehicle access.
The applicants alleged the right of way was intended only for pedestrian use and that the respondents' vehicles repeatedly trespassed and caused damage.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the original 1905 grant and 1973 modification did not restrict the easement to pedestrian use, and that motor vehicle access was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties.
The court further held that the right of way was safe for vehicular use and that any minor incursions were de minimis, resulting in no compensable damages.
Application for mandamus to compel municipality to enforce zoning by-law dismissed.
The applicant sought declaratory relief and permanent injunctions against a neighbouring winery and the Town, alleging the winery hosted outdoor events in violation of the agricultural zoning by-law and its site-specific plan.
The winery consented to the declarations and injunctions.
The applicant proceeded against the Town, seeking mandamus to compel by-law enforcement and a statutory injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the Town from facilitating the breach.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application against the Town, finding that the by-law did not impose a duty of enforcement necessary for mandamus, and there was no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness by the Town to warrant an injunction against it.
Youthful first offender sentenced to seven years for kidnapping and pointing a firearm.
The offender pled guilty to kidnapping a 15-year-old and pointing a loaded firearm at another youth.
The offences involved planning, the use of a firearm, and the involvement of two other youths.
The court weighed the serious aggravating factors against mitigating factors, including the offender's youth, guilty pleas, difficult upbringing, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody, which included frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking.
The court imposed a total sentence of seven years imprisonment, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.
Offender sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for failing to provide necessaries of life to autistic brother.
The offender was convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to her adult, autistic brother, who suffered extreme malnutrition and starvation while in her care.
The Crown sought 18 to 24 months imprisonment, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.
The court emphasized the primary sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence for offences against vulnerable persons.
Finding that a conditional sentence would not be proportionate given the offender's high moral blameworthiness and the duration of the neglect, the court imposed a 12-month term of imprisonment followed by three years of probation.
Law firm's accounts following a terminated contingency retainer were substantially reduced due to unreasonable docketing.
A law firm sought assessment of its legal fees under a contingency fee retainer agreement with former clients.
The clients terminated the retainer and retained new counsel.
The law firm claimed fees totaling approximately $158,920.38 based on hourly rates, arguing the retainer agreement provided for such compensation upon termination.
The court conducted a quantum meruit analysis and found the accounts unreasonable due to vague time entries, disputed meetings that did not occur, apparent double billing, and work that did not demonstrate value to the clients.
The court reduced the fees substantially, assessing Mr. Hopkins' account at $57,424.82 (including HST) and Mrs. Hopkins' account at $27,687.35 (including HST).
A youthful first offender convicted of possessing a loaded handgun received a conditional sentence of two years less a day.
The court sentenced Abel Assefa for possession of a loaded, restricted firearm without a license, contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code.
The decision reviews the facts, the parties' positions, and the applicable sentencing principles, including the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.
The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community, with periods of house arrest and curfew, and ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.
Accused acquitted of constructive possession charges but convicted of possessing a loaded firearm upon arrest.
The accused, Abel Assefa, was charged with multiple counts relating to drug trafficking and firearms offences following an undercover police investigation.
The court found the evidence sufficient to convict on the count of possession of a loaded restricted firearm but entered acquittals on all other counts, finding the circumstantial evidence did not establish knowledge, consent, or control over the drugs and firearms found in the apartment beyond a reasonable doubt.
