Antonio Skarica

The plaintiff successfully defeated the defendants' summary judgment motion in a condominium construction defect case.

The plaintiff had previously served an offer to settle the motion on terms more favourable than the outcome.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $42,812.79, finding the time spent reasonable given the complexity and volume of materials.

The court ordered these costs to be set off against $26,879.89 the plaintiff owed the defendants from previous motions, resulting in a net payment of $15,932.90 to the plaintiff.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including possession of stolen property and firearms following a break and enter.

During his arrest after fleeing a stolen van, a police officer shot the accused in the leg, believing the accused was armed and about to shoot.

The accused brought a Charter application under ss. 7 and 12, alleging excessive force by the police.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officer's belief that he faced imminent grievous bodily harm or death was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and entered convictions on counts 2 through 6 of the indictment.

The accused brought a constitutional challenge arguing that section 281 of the Criminal Code (abduction of a child under 14) is overly broad and creates an absolute liability offence that could criminalize innocent persons helping lost children.

The court dismissed the application, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Chartrand.

The court held that section 281 requires mens rea, specifically the intent to deprive a parent or guardian of possession of the child, and preserves all common law and statutory defences.

The accused, charged with abduction and attempted abduction of two children, brought pre-trial motions to exclude oral and video statements made to police, as well as evidence seized from his apartment pursuant to search warrants.

The court found the statements were voluntary and not obtained in breach of the Charter.

However, the court found that a second search warrant, which authorized the seizure of items previously denied by a Justice of the Peace in a first warrant application, violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the items not authorized by the first warrant under s. 24(2).

The plaintiff brought two actions against the defendants for unpaid commissions and remuneration for work on a technical audit related to a condominium development project.

The plaintiff claimed she had a verbal agreement for a 2% commission or $220,000 per year.

The court found no such agreement existed and instead applied quantum meruit, awarding the plaintiff $182,152.81 based on an industry-standard 1.5% commission rate.

The plaintiff's second claim for technical audit work was dismissed on the basis of unjust enrichment principles, as there was no reasonable expectation of payment.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for specific performance regarding a commercial property, the defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff's motion was denied because it failed to disclose the purchase of an adequate replacement property.

The court found the plaintiff's non-disclosure inappropriate and awarded costs to the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reduced the defendant's counsel's hourly rate from $700 to $350, fixing total costs at $32,238.35.

The accused brought a pre-trial severance application seeking to split five sexual offence counts involving two youthful family-member complainants into separate trials.

Applying the severance principles under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the governing framework from Last, the court balanced prejudice to the accused against the public interest in a single, efficient trial.

The court found a significant factual and legal nexus between the counts, including intertwined disclosure evidence and common post-offence conduct, and held that the Crown had a viable foundation for count-to-count similar fact evidence under Handy.

The judge concluded that severance was not required in the interests of justice and dismissed the application.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a dispute over the construction of a residence.

The plaintiffs subsequently brought a motion for summary judgment, alleging the defendants breached the settlement terms regarding electrical, plumbing, HVAC, and roofing work, and sought damages.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to enforce the settlement, arguing they had fully complied.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that the defendants had completed all required work to the plaintiffs' satisfaction and that the settlement funds had been properly released.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, granted the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement, and dismissed the underlying action and counterclaim.

The plaintiff was parked in his vehicle with a friend when approached by police.

The police demanded his driver's licence, which he refused to provide, questioning the reason for the stop.

The police forcibly removed him from the vehicle, grounded him, handcuffed him, and searched his vehicle, finding only a Bluetooth device.

He was then released.

The plaintiff sued for negligence, assault, false arrest, and Charter breaches.

The court found the police were conducting a criminal investigation without articulable cause, not a Highway Traffic Act stop.

The detention, arrest, and search were unlawful, and the force used was unreasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff and his family $59,800 in tort damages, but declined to award additional Charter or punitive damages.

Erick Reid was found guilty of manslaughter following a jury trial where his accomplice was convicted of first-degree murder.

The court made findings of fact consistent with the jury's verdict, establishing Reid's involvement in a planned armed robbery where the victim was shot and killed by his accomplice.

Reid brandished a firearm to intimidate a bystander and failed to assist the dying victim.

The court considered Reid's significant criminal record, including prior firearm and violence offences, and his lack of credibility during testimony.

Aggravating factors included the planned nature of the crime, the use of firearms, the victim's vulnerability, Reid's criminal history, and his refusal to identify the shooter.

Mitigating factors included that Reid did not fire the fatal shot, his supportive family, and pre-sentence custody credit.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearm-related violence, the court sentenced Reid to 15 years imprisonment.

With a credit of 42 months for pre-sentence custody, he was sentenced to a further 11.5 years.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA sample.

The accused, a former financial planner, was convicted of defrauding 41 victims of approximately $10 million through a Ponzi scheme over a 2.5-year period.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the large scale of the fraud, breach of trust, and devastating impact on vulnerable victims, with no mitigating factors.

The accused was sentenced to the maximum 14 years' imprisonment, less 10 years' pre-sentence custody credit (including enhanced credit for harsh conditions).

The court also ordered restitution of $10,887,885 and a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount.

In a pre-trial motion for a murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce hearsay evidence from the deceased victim's wife regarding a 2013 robbery allegedly committed by the accused.

The court applied the principled exception to hearsay and the test for prior discreditable conduct.

The court found the identification evidence for the 2013 robbery was frail, failing to meet threshold reliability.

Furthermore, the prejudicial effect of admitting the unproven prior robbery and a related newspaper article outweighed its probative value.

The Crown's motion to introduce the evidence was denied.

During a trial for a shooting that resulted in one death and two injuries, the Crown sought to introduce photographs of a mark on a hallway baseboard taken seven years after the incident, along with related property manager testimony and expert opinions from a forensic video analyst and a firearms expert.

The court ruled the evidence admissible, finding that its probative value in determining whether the accused fired a weapon and in assessing witness credibility significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The expert opinions met the threshold requirements for admissibility.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to re-open its examination-in-chief of a witness to refresh her memory using a prior statement, after having closed its examination but before cross-examination began.

The witness had given testimony inconsistent with her prior statement regarding the actions of the accused after the shooting.

The trial judge granted the request, applying the Coffin procedure and finding that allowing the Crown to refresh the witness's memory would not cause prejudice or trial unfairness, as the defence could cure any prejudice through cross-examination.

The defence applied to exclude evidence of prior discreditable conduct, known as the "Austin incident" in a murder and aggravated assault trial involving Tyrone Chambers and Joshua Warner.

The Austin incident, a minor assault accompanied by a threat to shoot, occurred shortly before the main shootings.

The defence argued its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The Crown contended the incident was relevant to the accused's knowledge of each other's gun possession, their willingness to back each other up, and the overall narrative of the night's events, forming part of a continuing transaction.

Applying the R. v. Handy test for similar fact evidence, the court treated the Austin incident as prior discreditable conduct but found its high probative value, particularly concerning narrative, the accused's knowledge and state of mind, Section 21 party liability, and self-defence, greatly outweighed the limited moral and reasoning prejudice.

The court ruled the evidence admissible.

During a second trial for second-degree murder, the Crown applied under section 715 of the Criminal Code to admit the prior trial testimony of a key witness who had left Canada for Ghana just before the trial commenced.

The court reviewed the principles from R. v. Potvin and subsequent jurisprudence regarding the principled approach to hearsay and the Crown's obligation to make reasonable efforts to secure testimony.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown failed to establish necessity as it had not pursued alternatives like commission evidence or offered to fund the witness's return, and that admitting the evidence would operate unfairly against the accused.

The accused pled guilty to producing marijuana and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police found a 239-plant grow operation in his basement.

He brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 7(2)(b)(iii) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court found that while the minimum sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the accused himself, it would be grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios, such as a licensed producer making an honest mistake of law or a family member providing minor assistance.

The court declared the mandatory minimum provision unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter and found it could not be saved by s. 1.

The accused, a former financial advisor, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000 after collecting approximately $12 million from 41 investors for supposedly low-risk real estate and corporate bond investments.

Instead of investing the funds as promised, the accused operated a Ponzi scheme, diverting the money to pay spousal support, fund his failing businesses, and make partial repayments to earlier investors.

The court found the accused's testimony to be entirely lacking in credibility and rejected the defence's forensic accounting evidence.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed.

The Crown and the two accused brought several pre-trial motions ahead of a re-trial for murder and aggravated assault arising from a shooting at a house party.

The court ruled on the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, including post-offence conduct, a photograph of the deceased, a lead fragment, ammunition, and black socks with gunshot residue.

The court also dismissed a Charter application challenging a search warrant, finding the accused lacked standing as he had abandoned the apartment.

Finally, the court denied the accused's request to sit at counsel table, ordering them to remain in separate prisoner's docks with leg belts due to significant security concerns and antagonistic defences.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 276.2 of the Criminal Code to introduce evidence of prior consensual sexual activity with the complainant, M.M., at a strip club.

The accused argued this evidence was necessary to explain the presence of his DNA on a vaginal swab taken from M.M. hours after the alleged assault and to challenge M.M.'s credibility regarding her earnings that night.

The court applied the two-step Darrach procedure, finding the accused's affidavit sufficiently detailed and his evidence credible enough to raise a reasonable doubt.

The court determined the evidence was admissible as it was a specific instance of sexual activity, relevant to an issue at trial (explaining DNA), and had significant probative value not outweighed by prejudice, upholding the accused's right to make full answer and defence.