Barnes

The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent mortgagee to pay outstanding property taxes and a declaration that a Notice of Sale was invalid.

The applicants had defaulted on a first mortgage, which the respondent then purchased to protect its second-priority cross-collateral mortgage.

The cross-collateral mortgage stipulated that upon default and buyout, an 8% interest rate and a 10% administrative fee would apply to the entire principal.

The applicants argued this violated section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 8% rate applied to the entire principal, not just arrears, and therefore did not constitute a prohibited penalty under section 8.

The Notice of Sale was declared valid and enforceable.

The accused was charged with importation of heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after picking up a package containing 2.3 kilograms of heroin from a UPS store.

The package had been intercepted and subject to a controlled delivery by the RCMP.

The accused claimed he was picking up the package for a friend and believed it contained auto parts.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreasonable and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the heroin in the package and in his apartment.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the second information, which added an impaired driving charge, was a nullity because the swearing officer relied solely on a presumption of good faith from the Crown's request rather than objective facts.

The Superior Court found that while the officer inadvertently swore a false oath, binding jurisprudence dictates the information is not a nullity.

Although the practice breached section 7 of the Charter and warranted a stay of the impaired driving charge, the remedy was moot as the appellant had been acquitted of that charge at trial.

The appeal against the over 80 conviction was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and firearms offences following the shooting death of his girlfriend and his own attempted suicide, applied for bail.

The applicant had a history of breaching bail conditions, including no-contact orders with the deceased.

Due to his severe medical condition resulting from the suicide attempt, primary and secondary ground concerns were somewhat mitigated, though the proposed sureties were deemed unsuitable.

The court denied bail primarily on the tertiary grounds, finding that the Crown's case was overwhelming, the offences were grave, and the applicant's history of non-compliance with court orders meant his release would shake public confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant, charged with offences related to a home invasion, brought an application alleging that the arresting officer used excessive force by smashing his head into the ground five times, in breach of his rights under ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence.

The court found that the applicant embellished his injuries and the degree of force used, and that the medical evidence did not support his claims.

The court concluded that the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable in the exigent circumstances of the arrest.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant moved for retroactive and ongoing child support, section 7 expenses, a finding that the parties' Sharia Marriage Contract is enforceable, and an order compelling the respondent to grant a religious divorce.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support arrears and ongoing support based on his 2018 income, as well as his proportionate share of section 7 expenses.

The court found the Sharia Marriage Contract to be a valid domestic contract under the Family Law Act, making the dowry an enforceable debt for equalization purposes.

Finally, the court ordered the respondent to provide the necessary consent and recitation for a Sharia divorce once initiated.

The plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of the Statement of Claim and to extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay, arguing prejudice due to the five-year delay between issuance and service.

The court found the plaintiff's explanation for the delay acceptable, noting the plaintiff was pursuing a WSIB claim and attempting to consolidate discoveries with companion actions.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, as his counsel had been involved in companion actions arising from the same accident.

The plaintiff's motions were granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The trial judge had excluded the breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding breaches of the accused's rights regarding a delayed roadside screening demand and a privacy breach involving video surveillance in her cell.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court upheld the trial judge's findings on the Charter breaches but found errors in principle in the s. 24(2) analysis, specifically regarding the assessment of the seriousness of the breaches and the application of the law concerning post-discovery Charter breaches.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant brought a motion seeking credits towards an equalization payment and retroactive child support, while the respondent sought post-judgment interest on the equalization payment and the removal of a temporary restraining order.

The court denied the applicant's request for credits for periodic spousal support and mortgage arrears, but ordered him to pay his half of a lien and legal costs.

The court awarded the respondent post-judgment interest at 3% on the equalization payment due to the applicant's deliberate delay.

The applicant was awarded retroactive child support, which was set off against the amount he owed the respondent.

The temporary restraining order against the respondent was maintained.

The applicant, charged with robbery and firearms offences, brought an application to exclude fingerprint evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The police identified the applicant by matching a fingerprint left at the crime scene to fingerprints stored in the RCMP's AFIS database from when the applicant was a young person.

The court found that the statutory access period for the youth records had expired, and the RCMP unlawfully retained the fingerprints in violation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

This constituted a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the RCMP's failure to destroy the records was a serious violation that circumvented Parliament's clear intent, and admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The fingerprint evidence was excluded.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder after stabbing his grandfather to death and severely injuring his grandmother.

The accused admitted to the acts but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) by reason of mental disorder under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code.

While the court accepted expert evidence that the accused suffered from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offences, it rejected the defence experts' opinions that he was incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The court found that the accused's post-offence conduct, which included fleeing the scene, hiding, and attempting to destroy evidence, demonstrated a rational capacity to appreciate that his actions were wrong according to societal standards.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment to enforce a 2010 summary judgment against the defendant for a mortgage shortfall.

The original writ had expired in 2016.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the plaintiff's nine-year delay in enforcement.

The court granted leave to issue the writ but, exercising its discretion to prevent injustice from the plaintiff's inaction, capped the accrual of interest to three years post-judgment.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The defendant argued for a significantly reduced partial indemnity award, citing mixed success and late waiver of claims.

The court found that neither party acted unreasonably and the matter proceeded in the normal course, warranting partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $6,022.44 in costs, finding the amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was largely successful in imputing income to the respondent and obtaining child support, the applicant sought full recovery costs of $43,927.37.

The court found the applicant was the most successful party, though the respondent had some success in capping section 7 expenses for dance.

The court determined the respondent behaved unreasonably by concealing his income, justifying costs on a full indemnity scale.

The court fixed costs at $38,000, payable within three months, and permitted the respondent to pay retroactive child support in 12 monthly installments.

The parties separated after a long relationship and marriage.

The applicant sought a 50% interest in the matrimonial home, which was solely in the respondent's name, equalization of net family property, occupation rent, child support, and spousal support.

The court found the applicant had a 50% interest in the home by way of a resulting trust, as it was purchased with funds from a joint account.

The court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment, occupation rent, and imputed income to the respondent for child support purposes because he voluntarily took a promotion that reduced his income.

The court also awarded spousal support of $1.00 per month and resolved arrears for child support and section 7 expenses.

The respondent in a family law application was successful in a motion to question two non-parties regarding the applicant's alleged beneficial ownership of a property.

The respondent sought costs of the motion against the non-parties.

The court noted that costs against non-parties are only awarded in unusual circumstances, such as fraud or abuse of process.

Because the allegations of fraud against the non-parties remained unsubstantiated, the court reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge who will ultimately resolve the fraud allegations.

The appellant mother appealed an order denying her access to her two children, who were made Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred in applying the test for access under s. 59(2.1) of the repealed Child and Family Services Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly concluded that the appellant's relationship with the children was not 'significantly advantageous' to reach the threshold of 'beneficial and meaningful.' Although the motions judge erred in her analysis of whether access would impair future adoption, the court found that a court-mandated access order would indeed impair the children's opportunity for adoption.

During a jury trial for fraud, personation, and forgery, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across different counts involving different complainants.

The defence conceded the application for counts involving the Gametronics investment scheme, which shared a highly similar modus operandi.

However, the court dismissed the application for counts involving a GIC and an RRSP, finding insufficient similarity and concluding that the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning outweighed any probative value.

The defendant brought a motion to quash a witness summons issued by the plaintiff to an independent medical assessor who had concluded the plaintiff was not totally disabled under a medical appeals process.

The plaintiff sought to use the examination transcript to defend an upcoming summary judgment motion.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that the evidence sought was irrelevant to the summary judgment motion, which focused on whether the plaintiff had waived her right to sue.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff improperly used Rule 39.03 to elicit expert opinion evidence without complying with the expert report requirements of Rule 53.03, constituting an abuse of process.

The accused was convicted of several offences related to domestic violence after the complainant's recanted statements were admitted for their truth.

Prior to sentencing, the defence learned that the Crown had instructed police to remove a material witness warrant for the complainant from CPIC and failed to disclose that the complainant had been arrested and released.

The defence applied for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process and subpoenaed the trial Crown.

The court quashed the subpoena, finding the Crown's evidence was not strictly necessary.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted an abuse of process by interfering with a judicial order and breaching disclosure obligations.

However, the court concluded a stay was not warranted and instead ordered a mistrial.