Andrew J. Goodman

Dylon Duarte was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of Tyquan Brown.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which could range from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown sought 20 years, citing numerous aggravating factors including a history of domestic violence, after-the-fact conduct, and an element of planning.

The defence argued for a 10-12 year period, emphasizing lack of planning and the offender's remorse and efforts at rehabilitation.

The court found the murder to be within a domestic violence context, despite the victim being a stranger, due to the offender's rage and obsessive pursuit of his ex-partner leading to the killing.

Considering the aggravating factors and the expanded range for domestic violence murders (12-17 years), the court fixed the parole ineligibility period at 16 years.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-contact order with the victim's family.

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel of record, arguing that counsel was a material witness to the negotiations underlying the plaintiffs' claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court applied the Essa factors and found that the defendant failed to establish that counsel would likely be called as a witness or that his evidence was necessary.

The court also held that the defendant was not entitled to disclosure of solicitor-client privileged communications.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with drug and firearm offences following a traffic stop where police found cocaine and fentanyl in his fanny pack, and later found a loaded firearm in the police cruiser where he had been seated.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging unlawful detention, unreasonable search, and a breach of his right to make full answer and defence due to lost sally port video evidence.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the investigative detention and subsequent search were lawful based on officer safety concerns, and the lost video did not cause actual prejudice.

The accused was found guilty of the drug offences but acquitted of the firearm offences, as the court found the police evidence regarding the search of the cruiser unreliable.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 47 months.

After deducting defence-caused delay and delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, which the court recognized as a discrete exceptional circumstance, the net delay was calculated at 26 months.

As this fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for superior court cases, and the defence failed to show a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, the application was dismissed.

The applicants, five individuals experiencing homelessness, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the City of Hamilton from enforcing a by-law prohibiting camping in city parks.

They argued that enforcement during the COVID-19 pandemic and housing crisis violated their rights under section 7 of the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the court concluded the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm specific to themselves, as they had been offered or received shelter.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the City, citing the public interest in safe parks, the City's efforts to provide shelter and supports, and the health and safety risks associated with the encampments.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting the victim and subsequently dismembering and destroying the body.

The Crown sought a 23-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 14 years with a further reduction for Charter breaches related to prolonged administrative segregation.

The court found the egregious post-offence conduct and the offender's extensive criminal record warranted a 20-year parole ineligibility period.

The court also found that the offender's prolonged administrative segregation violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter, granting a 3-year reduction.

The final period of parole ineligibility was fixed at 17 years.

The applicant, charged with historic sexual assault and sexual interference, sought a stay of proceedings after the Crown repudiated a resolution agreement.

The Crown had initially agreed to resolve the matter with a peace bond, acknowledging the case was 'almost unwinnable'.

However, after a recorded conversation with the complainant, who expressed a desire for a trial to confront the applicant publicly, the Crown reneged on the agreement citing 'new information'.

The court found there was no new information and that the Crown had improperly suborned its public duty to the complainant's personal agenda.

Concluding this conduct fell into the residual category of abuse of process and undermined the integrity of the justice system, the court granted the application and stayed the charges.

The applicants sought a declaration of ownership over a portion of the respondent's neighbouring property by way of adverse possession.

The respondent brought a cross-application for a declaration of trespass and an order to remove a fence built by the applicants on the disputed lands.

The court dismissed the adverse possession claim, finding that the applicants' predecessors in title did not have continuous, peaceful, or exclusive possession for the requisite 10-year period prior to the lands being converted to the Land Titles system in 1996.

Consequently, the court granted the respondent's application, declaring the fence a continuing trespass and issuing a mandatory injunction for its removal.

In a criminal trial involving human trafficking and sex work offences, the trial judge issued a preliminary ruling on jury selection procedures following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Chouhan.

The court held that counsel, rather than the trial judge, would pose the challenge for cause questions to prospective jurors individually, without providing the questions in advance.

The court also permitted offence-based questions regarding the victim's race and occupation as a sex trade worker, and outlined the procedure for exercising the stand-by power under section 633 of the Criminal Code to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the trial judge under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The respondent conceded that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by misapprehending the evidence regarding the attribution of delay.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the trial judge erred in failing to attribute the delay from a contested adjournment to the defence, as the respondent had changed counsel days before trial and requested the adjournment while the Crown was ready to proceed.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new trial.

The appellant, a permanent resident, appealed his 12-month sentence for assault causing bodily harm and breach of recognizance.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the immigration consequences, which rendered him inadmissible to Canada, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the immigration consequences but correctly concluded they did not justify a sentence below the appropriate range given the gravity of the violent assault.

The 12-month sentence was held to be fit and not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for obstructing police and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

He argued that the trial judge erred by summarily dismissing his Charter application and providing insufficient reasons.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were legally and factually sufficient given the uncontroversial evidence, the lack of submissions from defence counsel on the Charter issues, and the clear factual basis that the appellant was not detained prior to his arrest for obstruction.

The accused was charged with seven counts relating to the armed robbery of a pharmacy.

Three masked men entered the pharmacy, stole narcotics and cash, and fled in a vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused was the planner and driver of the getaway vehicle, relying on circumstantial evidence including GPS tracking of the stolen narcotics, cell phone records, and video surveillance.

The court found the accused guilty of robbery, possession of narcotics over $5,000, and breach of probation, concluding he was a party to the offence.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the firearms charges, finding the evidence insufficient to prove constructive possession of the firearm abandoned near the getaway vehicle.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and subjected to a strip search at the police station.

The accused brought an application to exclude the cocaine seized from his residence, arguing the strip search violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the police failed to follow the Golden framework and their own policies, conducting the search in a non-private area and leaving the accused completely naked.

The court concluded this was a serious breach of s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the evidence, finding that the deliberate and cavalier police conduct outweighed the truth-seeking function of the trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $1,580,000 owed under a Promissory Note and secured by a mortgage.

The defendants argued that the debt was subject to various set-offs, including unpaid rent, and that the Promissory Note was part of a broader context of dealings.

The court found that the Promissory Note was not a bill of exchange but a valid loan agreement containing an entire agreement clause, which precluded the defendants' claims for legal and equitable set-off.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount, but the defendants were granted leave to proceed with their counterclaim regarding a specific contractual set-off for rents against accrued interest.

The accused, adhering to pseudolegal sovereign citizen beliefs, attended a utility company with accomplices intending to 'arrest' the CEO and seize the company's assets.

He was charged with conspiracy to kidnap and obstructing a peace officer after providing police with a fictitious name and diplomatic identification.

The court acquitted the accused of obstructing police, finding he honestly believed his assumed name and lacked the requisite mens rea.

However, the court convicted him of conspiracy to kidnap, rejecting his claim of lawful authority and finding he actively planned and directed others to confine the CEO.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a Promissory Note for $293,210 against the defendants.

The defendants argued that the note was invalid and raised a counterclaim for set-off based on various alleged debts.

The court found that the defendants' evidence lacked credibility, the counterclaim was statute-barred and without merit, and the Promissory Note was valid and enforceable.

Alternatively, the court found the defendants liable on the basis of unjust enrichment.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Heffner Investments Limited (HIL), brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $2.5 million debt secured by a promissory note and a second mortgage.

The defendant, Medcap Real Estate Holdings Inc. (Medcap), argued that the alleged $2.5 million debt was a sham, part of a single $2.1 million loan that had already been repaid, and that the plaintiff had breached an agreement to assist with refinancing.

The court found significant factual disputes and credibility issues between the parties regarding the nature and origin of the debt, the terms of their agreement, and the plaintiff's alleged breach.

Concluding that these issues could not be fairly resolved without a full trial, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The defendant, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ), brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff's claim, arguing there was no private law duty of care owed to the plaintiff and that the claim failed to establish a reasonable cause of action against HMQ.

The plaintiff alleged HMQ was negligent in training police officers, specifically regarding their duties under the Police Services Act and Mental Health Act, leading to the plaintiff's injuries after being released by an Amherstburg police officer.

The court granted HMQ's motion, finding no prima facie private law duty of care owed by HMQ to the plaintiff, either statutorily, by analogy to previous cases, or under the Anns/Cooper analysis, due to a lack of foreseeability and proximity.

The court also determined that police training is a policy matter, not an operational one, and that imposing such a duty would have negative public policy implications, making HMQ a vicarious insurer for all police interactions.

The action against HMQ was dismissed without leave to amend.

The defendants, Keith Mallory and Madison Township Police Department (MTPD), brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action against them for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff, Natenon Tongtae, suffered severe injuries in Ontario after being released by an Ontario police officer who had communicated with the Ohio defendants regarding the plaintiff's missing person status and mental health.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, finding that the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action in negligence and that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the action, making it the appropriate forum.