Barnes

The accused was convicted by a jury of importing between 6.5 and 8.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 years' incarceration, while the defence argued for 6.5 years, citing time spent on bail as a mitigating factor.

The court found that the accused's bail conditions were not sufficiently stringent to warrant a reduction in sentence.

Applying the established sentencing range for first-time offenders importing large quantities of cocaine, the court sentenced the accused to 7 years' incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant sought an order prohibiting the respondent from taking further steps in the proceeding, including his motion to set aside a previous order, until he paid $250,000 towards child support arrears or posted security.

The respondent argued he could not pay until he received his share of the proceeds from a court-ordered sale of a jointly owned property, which the applicant controlled.

The court found the record deficient and directed the applicant to provide a timetable for listing the property and the respondent to provide an updated financial statement before deciding the motion.

The appellant, Wal-Mart Canada Corporation, appealed its conviction under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to keep a floor free of hazards or obstructions.

An employee tripped over an empty skid in an aisle while moving merchandise backwards with a manual skid jack, fell, and hit his head.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding that the empty skid constituted a hazard or obstruction under section 11 of Regulation 851.

The court also upheld the finding that the appellant failed to establish the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities, noting the absence of safety sweep logs for the backroom area.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff Ontario corporation sued the defendant Northern Ireland corporation for breach of contract regarding the delivery of a waste recycling facility.

The defendant moved to stay the action, arguing lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens based on a forum selection clause in its standard terms and conditions.

The court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter due to a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

However, the court stayed the action, finding that the plaintiff was bound by the forum selection clause and failed to show strong cause why it should not be enforced.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and mischief, as well as a restitution order, arising from a road rage incident on a busy highway.

The trial judge found the appellant intentionally stopped his vehicle in front of the complainant's, causing a collision and subsequent altercation where the appellant damaged the complainant's vehicle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and met the legal tests for dangerous driving and mischief.

However, the court varied the restitution order, reducing it to exclude the cost of windshield repair, as the trial judge had not been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant caused that specific damage.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging her section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated conclusion of the trial was 64 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

Applying the transitional exceptional circumstance framework, the court found that the Crown failed to justify the delay, noting the applicant took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and suffered actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the charges were stayed.

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

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent after accepting expert evidence that the absence of a value for 'uncertainty of measurement' raised a reasonable doubt about the proper functioning of the approved instrument.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that uncertainty of measurement is not required by law and that speculative evidence regarding potential instrument malfunction is insufficient to constitute 'evidence tending to show' under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

A new trial was ordered.

The parties sought a divorce and resolution of corollary issues including equalization of net family property, spousal support, and the partition and sale of the matrimonial home.

The court determined the date of separation to be September 1, 2010, and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent, which was adjusted to account for the applicant's sole payment of the mortgage since separation.

The court denied child support for the adult child, awarded a lump sum non-compensatory spousal support payment to the respondent due to his limited income-earning capacity from motor vehicle accidents, denied the applicant's request for exclusive possession, and ordered the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault with a weapon following a judge-alone trial.

The trial judge had found that the appellant struck the complainant with a doll, causing scratches.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge applied a lesser standard of proof and failed to provide sufficient reasons, specifically by failing to apply the second and third steps of the W.D. test.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge did not apply a lesser standard of proof, he failed to provide sufficient reasons explaining why he accepted the complainant's evidence despite unresolved discrepancies.

The court concluded the trial judge inadvertently treated the credibility assessment as a contest and failed to apply the third step of the W.D. test.

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

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, which alleged breach of contract, fraud, and negligence regarding legal services provided in India.

The defendants sought to strike claims for punitive damages and allegations that they conducted an illegal business in Canada.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings lacked sufficient particulars to support the claims for punitive damages and the allegations of illegal business operations.

The impugned paragraphs were struck with leave to amend.

The self-represented appellant appeared before the court to set a date for a judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a building permit revocation and zoning non-compliance.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the technicality that it was commenced under the wrong court file number.

The court denied the request for dismissal, ordered the court office to assign a new file number, directed the production of a video recording of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, and clarified the remediation timetable from a previous order.

The applicant sought to lift a stay on his motion to change a final order.

The stay had been imposed due to his failure to comply with previous court orders, specifically the payment of costs.

The court found the applicant in breach of the previous order, as costs cannot be collected as support by the Family Responsibility Office without an explicit court order.

The court varied the previous order, lifting the stay conditionally upon the applicant paying $172,156.44 in accumulated costs from Ontario and foreign jurisdictions, and explicitly ordered these costs to be enforceable as support.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall claim.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on liquid on the floor, while the defendant argued there was no liquid and it had a reasonable system of inspection.

The court granted the defendant leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial.

However, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding credibility, whether there was liquid on the floor, and whether the defendant's employees actually followed the system of inspection.

The moving parties brought a motion alleging the responding party was in contempt of a court order establishing a remediation timetable for zoning variances.

Although the responding party technically breached the order by applying for different variances than those specified, the court found that post-order discussions between the responding party and the Chief Building Official caused confusion.

The court halted the contempt hearing, dismissed the motion, and directed the parties to discuss a way forward.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Chief Building Official revoking a building permit for the construction of a two-family dwelling.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding it was barred by res judicata as the revocation order had been previously upheld.

On the merits, the court held that while the property had legal non-conforming use status, the appellant's proposed construction constituted an extraordinary intensification of use that required a zoning variation from the Committee of Adjustments, which falls outside the authority of the Chief Building Official.

The defence brought an application to preclude the Crown from bringing a hearsay application to admit the prior statements of a missing witness.

The defence argued the Crown failed to provide the required 30 days' notice under Rule 30.04 of the Superior Court Criminal Proceedings Rules and failed to promptly disclose that the witness could not be found.

The court found that while the police efforts to locate the witness were lacking and the Crown failed to comply with the notice rules, there was no improper motive.

The court concluded it was in the interests of justice to dispense with compliance with the rules, as the defence suffered no prejudice.

The defendants, including the Ministry of the Attorney General and two Crown Attorneys, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had sued the defendants for defamation and malicious prosecution arising from his criminal proceedings.

The court granted the motion, finding that the action was statute-barred by section 8(1) of the Ministry of the Attorney General Act, as the defendants were acting in the performance of their duties.

Furthermore, the court held that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as there were reasonable and probable grounds for the charges laid against the plaintiff.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after CBSA officers found cocaine in fruit juice cans in her luggage during a secondary inspection at the airport.

The accused sought to exclude statements she made to a CBSA officer, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of her s. 7 and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court held that the statements were voluntary, as the accused was statutorily compelled to answer routine questions at the border.

The court further held that the accused was not detained until the officer formed a sufficiently strong particularized suspicion after x-raying the cans, at which point no further statements were made.

The Charter motion was dismissed and the statements were ruled admissible.

The applicant father sought to vary a final consent order that provided for shared custody of the parties' three children, seeking sole custody, child support, and s. 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the shared parenting arrangement had become unworkable and the children consistently expressed a desire to live with the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the father with a specified access schedule for the mother.

The father was granted leave to amend his pleadings at trial.

The court ordered the mother to pay ongoing child support and partial retroactive child support, but denied the father's claim for retroactive s. 7 expenses due to lack of notice and his tactical use of an expert report.

The accused, a Black man charged with the murder of an Asian man, brought a motion to allow multiple-choice questions to be put to prospective jurors during the challenge for cause process, arguing the standard Parks question is insufficient to uncover subconscious racial bias.

The Crown opposed the motion, arguing there was no evidentiary basis to depart from the standard question.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the proposed multiple-choice format would be an improvement over the standard Parks question, but directed that jurors be instructed they may provide detailed answers rather than just 'yes' or 'no'.