Anne E. London-Weinstein

The plaintiff, assignee of a debt for commercial fuel deliveries, brought a motion for summary judgment against a father and son who previously operated a business as a general partnership.

The partnership had been dissolved by an arbitrator's order, but neither partner notified the fuel supplier.

The son continued to order fuel while occupying the business premises.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that under s. 36(1) of the Partnerships Act, the failure to notify the creditor meant both former partners remained jointly and severally liable for the debt incurred.

The assignment of the debt was also found to be valid.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and sexual assault against his former partner, as well as assault against their infant son.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant.

The trial judge found numerous significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding her motivations for wanting the accused out of the house, the timing of her seeking legal advice for custody, and her explanation for the lack of visible facial injuries.

Due to these credibility and reliability concerns, the court found a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

Edward McGrath sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on the tertiary ground.

He was charged with 23 offences, including discharging a firearm over a complainant's head while on probation and a s. 109 order, and drug trafficking.

The applicant proposed an improved bail plan with two sureties and addiction treatment.

The court found the addition of a new surety who would supervise the applicant at work constituted a material change in circumstances, warranting a de novo hearing.

However, despite the strong bail plan and capable sureties, the court concluded that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, given the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the Crown's case, and the applicant's breach of existing orders.

The original detention order was upheld.

The applicant, Lachlan MacGregor, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights.

The breach arose from police administering a taser in drive stun mode to his thigh after he was arrested, handcuffed, and not demonstrating violence, while exhibiting signs of impairment.

The court found that the force used was unreasonable and excessive, constituting a breach of s. 7 and s. 12 of the Charter.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, determining that the case did not meet the 'clearest of cases' threshold required for such a drastic remedy, as there was no prejudice to the accused's right to a fair trial and alternative remedies existed.

The accused was involved in a fatal motor vehicle collision while driving a rental car.

Police seized the vehicle and conducted a warrantless search, locating drug paraphernalia in a knapsack and downloading the vehicle's Crash Data Recovery (CDR) data.

Police subsequently obtained a search warrant for the accused's blood and medical records.

The accused brought a motion to quash the warrant and exclude evidence under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading information regarding the knapsack search, the warrant could still have issued on the remaining evidence.

The court further held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the CDR data of the rental vehicle.

However, the court found that the warrantless search of the accused's knapsack for the vehicle's keys violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

Arguments regarding the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) were deferred.

The appellant appealed his conviction for being in care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's testimony that he exited his vehicle to drink wine in his garage before police arrived.

The appeal argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to consider independent corroborative evidence.

The appellate court found that the trial judge was alive to the independent evidence and reasonably concluded it was insufficient to rebut the presumption of care and control, especially given the appellant's lack of credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

Mid-trial, the accused, Siavash Norouzian, brought a motion to re-open the defence case to call a new expert for phone analysis and to recall Detective Gazey, a Crown witness.

This application arose after issues concerning the reliability of initial expert evidence and *Browne v. Dunn* concerns were raised by the Crown.

The court granted the defence permission to call a new expert and recall Detective Gazey, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court declined to call the expert itself or order the Crown to cover the expert's fees, instead inviting a funding application.

The defendant, Damion Lewis, applied to exclude evidence (a loaded .357 Magnum revolver and ammunition) obtained during a search incident to arrest, arguing breaches of his section 8 Charter rights due to unlawful scope and execution of the search.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Lewis for theft of mail, making the initial search lawful.

However, the manner of the search was deemed unreasonable because an officer pointed an assault rifle at the handcuffed defendant and threatened to shoot him if he moved.

Despite this serious Charter breach, the court, applying the *Grant* framework, declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The high reliability of the evidence and society's heightened interest in addressing gun violence in Toronto outweighed the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the defendant's Charter interests, especially since the arresting officer acted in good faith and the evidence would have been discovered inevitably.

The applicant, Ramy Musa, sought a de novo bail review after being detained on the tertiary ground for serious drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including a revised, highly stringent release plan and a re-evaluation of the carfentanil's street value, which permitted a de novo hearing.

However, after considering the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the extreme seriousness of the offences (possession of multiple loaded unauthorized firearms and trafficking lethal carfentanil), the circumstances of the commission, and the potential for a lengthy penitentiary term, the court concluded that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Despite a strong proposed bail plan and lack of criminal record, the application for judicial interim release was dismissed, and the detention order maintained.

J.B. was found guilty of assault bodily harm in a domestic context following a trial.

The Crown sought 9-12 months custody, while the defence requested time served (18 days equivalent) and probation.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing factors for domestic assault, noting the aggravating factors of the victim's conditioning to abuse, the presence of a child during part of the incident, and the offender's lack of remorse and victim-blaming.

Mitigating factors included cooperation with police, stable employment, and a dated, unrelated criminal record.

The court imposed a sentence of 108 days in custody (90 further days intermittently after 18 days credit), 36 months probation, a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, mandatory domestic violence counselling, and 100 hours of community service.

Nicholas Apan pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (51.8 grams).

The Crown sought two years' incarceration, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court considered principles of proportionality, parity, denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, noting the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts since the offence, his mental health issues, and family support.

The court distinguished between conditional sentences (not available for this offence) and probation regarding their denunciatory effect.

The judge imposed an intermittent sentence of 90 days, in addition to 30 days credit for time served, followed by 18 months of probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting a 23-year-old patron at a male strip club where he worked as a dancer.

The victim had consumed alcohol but was not incapacitated.

The offender performed unprotected fellatio and vaginal intercourse on the victim despite her saying no.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought 12 to 15 months.

The court found the unprotected nature of the assault, the semi-public location, and the offender's persistence after being told no to be aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to two years less a day in custody, followed by 24 months of probation, and ordered to comply with SOIRA for 20 years.