Bielby

The offender, an aviation mechanic, was convicted of attempting to import cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime after participating in a police sting operation.

He used his airport security clearance to retrieve a package he believed contained one kilogram of cocaine from an airplane panel.

The court found his moral culpability was significantly higher than a mere courier due to his breach of trust and planning.

He was sentenced to a net term of 4 years and 11 months in custody.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel additional financial disclosure and for a finding of contempt against the defendants for allegedly breaching prior court orders requiring answers to written questions and disclosure.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that conflicting affidavit evidence prevented a finding of contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also declined to order additional disclosure, holding that the plaintiff must first conduct an examination in aid of execution under Rule 60.18 before seeking such relief by motion.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 2.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

At sentencing, the offender argued for a conditional sentence, citing systemic racism, a difficult childhood, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including segregation and lockdowns.

The court acknowledged the offender's difficult background and the existence of systemic racism, which justified a sentence slightly below the standard 6-8 year Cunningham range.

However, the court found that the seriousness of the offence required a period of incarceration.

The court imposed a base sentence of 4.5 years, reduced to 3.5 years after applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant father appealed an arbitration award that ordered the parties' two children to attend a public school rather than a private Montessori school for the 2020/2021 academic year.

The arbitrator had considered factors including proximity, class size, and community ties.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred in law by overemphasizing proximity, and made factual errors regarding travel times.

The court admitted fresh evidence from both parties but ultimately found no errors of law, palpable and overriding errors of fact, or errors of mixed fact and law in the arbitrator's exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court noting that changing schools so late in the academic year during the COVID-19 pandemic would not be in the children's best interests regardless.

The offender pleaded guilty to importing 758 grams of cocaine into Canada after being caught at Pearson International Airport.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered the offender's remorse, guilty plea, and lack of a related criminal record as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to two years in jail, along with a DNA order and a weapons prohibition.

The offender was convicted of possessing 486 grams of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after accepting a controlled delivery package.

The offender acted as a low-level conduit or 'mule' for financial gain while also participating in fraudulent schemes.

The court weighed the highly addictive nature of heroin and the profit motive as aggravating factors against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record.

A global sentence of four years was imposed, reduced to 22 months of further custody after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender, a habitual criminal with 62 prior convictions, drove a stolen truck through a red light while evading police, striking and killing another driver before fleeing the scene.

He was convicted of criminal negligence causing death, failing to remain, possession of stolen property, and driving while disqualified.

The court considered his Aboriginal heritage as a mitigating factor under the Gladue framework but emphasized the paramount need for denunciation and protection of the public.

A global sentence of 15 years' incarceration was imposed, along with a lifetime driving prohibition and delayed parole eligibility.

The plaintiff was injured in a skiing accident and subsequently underwent spinal surgery performed by the defendant.

During the surgery, an instrument slipped, causing further nerve damage.

The defendant informed the plaintiff of the surgical accident the following day.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the ski resort but did not sue the defendant until nearly five years later, after receiving an expert report from the ski resort's counsel suggesting the defendant breached the standard of care.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute-barred.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the surgical accident, and the claim was discoverable well before the receipt of the expert report.