Anita Mehta

The defendants moved to set aside default judgments in two related mortgage actions concerning their family home in Oakville.

The first action involved a second private mortgage held by an individual lender, while the second involved a first mortgage assigned to a corporate lender.

The defendants alleged fraud, unconscionability, and a coordinated loan-to-own scheme as meritorious defences.

Before the court needed to decide the motions, all parties reached a resolution through counsel cooperation, with one motion adjourned sine die and the other resolved by Minutes of Settlement, granting the defendants additional time to refinance and pay the indebtedness.

Ian Ohab was convicted of second-degree murder and pleaded guilty to indignity to a human body.

The victim, Melissa Cooper, was killed and dismembered by Ohab, who then disposed of her body parts.

The Crown sought a 25-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence proposed 15-18 years.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, Ohab's meticulous concealment of the crime, the dismemberment and disposal of the body, and his disturbing criminal record of violence against women.

Mitigating factors were minimal, with Ohab showing no remorse and continuing to deny the murder.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 22 years, plus a concurrent 5-year sentence for indignity to a human body.

Ian Ohab, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the first-degree murder count.

The Crown argued that evidence of sexual assault and forcible confinement provided the basis for first-degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court, applying the test for a directed verdict, found no evidence capable of supporting an inference of sexual assault or unlawful confinement.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and the accused will stand trial for second-degree murder only.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a preliminary hearing decision committing him for trial on first-degree murder.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for second-degree murder and interfering with human remains, but argued no evidence supported first-degree murder.

The Crown contended the murder occurred during a sexual assault or forcible confinement, relying on s. 231(5)(b) and (e) of the Criminal Code.

The court, reviewing the preliminary hearing judge's decision for jurisdictional error, found that a reasonable jury could infer a sexual assault in the elevator and that the murder was part of a continuous transaction with the sexual assault or forcible confinement, based on the short timeframe and the victim's cell phone activity.

The application for certiorari was dismissed, and the accused was ordered to stand trial for first-degree murder.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a declaration that a child born in 2013 is in need of protection and should be made a Crown ward without access for adoption purposes.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there was a genuine issue requiring trial regarding whether she had made sufficient progress in addressing the issues that led to the child's removal.

The court found overwhelming evidence supporting the need for protection finding and that Crown wardship without access was in the child's best interests.

The mother's history of serious abuse of previous children, lack of engagement with recommended services, uncooperativeness with the society, poor judgment, and significant cognitive and mental health issues that were not amenable to change all weighed against return to parental care.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.