A. Rose

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and two counts of possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The firearm, an overcapacity magazine, and ammunition were found in his bedroom.

The court considered the aggravating factors of his prior record, the defaced serial number, the overcapacity magazine, and the breach of two prohibition orders.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, supportive family, strict bail conditions, and harsh presentence custody conditions (frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking).

The court imposed a total sentence of 39 months, which was reduced to 28 months after applying credits for presentence custody, harsh conditions, and time spent on strict bail.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral award or, alternatively, leave to appeal the award.

The arbitrator had granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, finding the applicant breached a software services agreement.

The applicant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to proceed by summary judgment without consent, decided issues beyond the scope of the motion, and relied on independent legal research.

The court dismissed the application, finding the jurisdictional challenge was out of time and, in any event, the arbitrator had the authority to determine the procedure, including proceeding by summary judgment.

The court also found the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of the motion or improperly rely on independent research.

Leave to appeal was denied as the interpretation of the limitation of liability clause was a question of mixed fact and law.

During a Commercial List case management conference in a complex multi‑party securities and investment dispute, the court issued procedural directions governing ongoing litigation steps.

The court addressed the potential settlement motion involving certain defendants, confirmed the status of examinations for discovery, and ordered timelines for answering undertakings.

The judge provided structured options for handling refusals motions and warned that costs may be assessed per refusal to discourage unnecessary motions.

Additional directions were given regarding the timing of expert reports, a possible future summary judgment motion, and scheduling of the next case management conference.

Application for a final order approving a corporate plan of arrangement under s. 182 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The proposed transaction involved the acquisition of a steel manufacturer through an arrangement negotiated at arm’s length with an acquiring corporation and its subsidiary.

The court applied the governing principles from BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, requiring that the arrangement constitute a valid statutory arrangement, comply with procedural requirements, be proposed in good faith, and be fair and reasonable.

Evidence demonstrated extensive negotiations, fairness opinion support, overwhelming shareholder approval, and the absence of dissent or opposition.

The court concluded the arrangement had a valid business purpose and fairly resolved the interests of affected stakeholders.