Blake Scott

The decision addresses motions regarding the appointment of representative counsel for current and former employees and retirees of Hudson’s Bay Company ULC and related entities in ongoing Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The Court declined to appoint any of the nominated law firms as representative counsel at this stage, instead appointing the Honourable Herman Wilton-Siegel as an independent third party to evaluate proposals and make a recommendation.

The Court also approved amendments to the Sale and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to remove the company’s art and artifact collection from the SISP and to appoint Heffel Gallery Limited to conduct a separate auction for the collection, subject to further court approval of procedures.

The reasons review the legal framework for appointing representative counsel and the importance of balancing stakeholder interests in complex insolvency proceedings.

Anthony Jallim was sentenced for armed robbery and residence invasion.

The court imposed a four-year concurrent incarceration sentence, acknowledging his youth, early acceptance of responsibility, and the offence being at the lower end of the spectrum for such crimes.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, a 10-year weapons prohibition (lifetime for certain items), and a no-contact order with victims.

Victim surcharges were waived.

The accused, Louise Reid and Melissa Stamper, pleaded guilty to perjury, with Reid also pleading guilty to fraud over $5,000.

The charges arose from a 2005 motor vehicle collision where Reid falsely claimed to be the driver to protect her unlicensed son, subsequently defrauding an insurance company of over $36,000.

Stamper, Reid's daughter, later committed perjury by supporting her mother's false claim in a civil suit.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for offences that undermine the administration of justice.

Considering the unconstitutionality of the statutory preclusion for conditional sentences (as per R. v. Sharma), the court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence for Stamper, citing her lesser culpability, youth at the time of the initial events, and current pregnancy.

Reid received a 9-month custodial sentence (4 months for fraud, 5 months consecutive for perjury), with a reduction to reflect the harsh conditions of incarceration during the pandemic.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a 12-year-old complainant during an early morning incident on May 27, 2018, at the accused's residence.

The complainant testified that the accused lay beside her on a mattress in the basement and touched her buttocks, breasts, and vaginal area over her clothing, and attempted to place his hand under her shorts.

The accused claimed he was in the basement only to retrieve dogs that had escaped their enclosure.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and internally inconsistent, finding it contradicted by the testimony of his wife and daughter.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, noting her detailed account, contemporaneous text messages reflecting her fear and distress, and corroborating evidence from the accused's wife.

The court found the Crown proved all essential elements of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a conviction on sexual interference with a conditional stay on the sexual assault charge.

The defendant was sentenced following a guilty plea to a domestic violence offense.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, including terms requiring the defendant to keep the peace, complete the Partner Assault Response (PARS) program, attend counseling for psychiatric and psychological issues, maintain a 100-meter distance from the victim, and comply with a weapons prohibition under section 110 of the Criminal Code.

The court also ordered a DNA sample and waived the victim surcharge.

The sentencing emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence, the controlling behavior exhibited, and the importance of rehabilitation through counseling programs.

The defendant was charged with "Over 80" following a police investigation initiated by an expired vehicle validation tag.

The defendant brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 9 alleging arbitrary detention through unjustified handcuffing prior to arrest while awaiting the delivery of an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

The Crown conceded that if handcuffing prior to arrest was established, the breath sample results should be excluded.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the defendant was handcuffed while awaiting the ASD delivery, constituting a breach of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The breath readings were excluded and the defendant was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a sleeping woman in her own bedroom during a Christmas party.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 8 months and 24 days (9 months less 7 days credit for collateral consequences) followed by 2 years' probation.

The court found that while the accused was a first offender with mitigating circumstances, the serious aggravating factors—including digital penetration of a sleeping, non-consenting victim in her own home, persistence despite refusal, breach of trust as a guest, and significant ongoing harm to the victim—required incarceration to adequately address denunciation and deterrence.

A conditional sentence was found to be insufficient to reflect the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown sought to rely on breath samples obtained through an approved screening device (ASD) and approved instrument.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath samples on Charter grounds, alleging that while awaiting the arrival of the second ASD, the officer handcuffed him and placed him in the cruiser while attending a nearby coffee shop.

The court found that the defendant's rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were breached by the handcuffing, as there were no exceptional circumstances to justify this conduct during the investigative ASD demand.

The breath test results were excluded from evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, and the charge was dismissed.

A peace bond was subsequently imposed.

The offender pleaded guilty to communicating by computer with a person he believed to be under 16 years of age for the purpose of facilitating sexual touching, contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Over a three-week period, the offender engaged in sexually explicit communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl, including requesting intimate images and sending explicit videos.

The offender arranged an in-person meeting and travelled to the meeting location with items the purported victim had requested.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by three years probation, along with mandatory DNA and SOIRA orders and a 20-year s. 161 prohibition on computer and internet use for communicating with minors.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a single-vehicle collision on November 21, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on breath analysis results and expert toxicology evidence.

The defence raised Charter challenges regarding the admissibility of pre-arrest statements, the validity of the breath demand, and the right to counsel.

The court found no Charter breaches and admitted all evidence.

The accused was convicted on both counts based on breath readings showing a blood alcohol concentration of 88 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and expert evidence establishing impairment.

The defendant was charged with over 80, having care or control of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging whether the investigating officer had reasonable suspicion to make an approved screening device (ASD) demand and whether there was an unreasonable delay in obtaining breath samples.

The defence conceded reasonable suspicion existed based on the odour of alcohol.

The primary issue was whether a 13-minute delay while the officer waited for a tow truck to impound the vehicle violated the "as soon as practicable" requirement under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the delay was reasonable under the circumstances and dismissed the Charter application.

The accused pleaded guilty to production of hash oil contrary to section 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and arson by negligence contrary to section 436(1) of the Criminal Code.

An explosion occurred in the accused's shed while he was extracting hash oil from marijuana shake for personal medical use to manage chronic pain.

The accused sustained severe burn injuries covering approximately 60% of his body with third-degree burns, requiring hospitalization and multiple surgeries.

The Crown sought a 90-day custodial sentence, but the defence argued for a suspended sentence with probation given the exceptional circumstances.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, finding that the accused's significant personal suffering, first-offender status, legitimate medical need, and the principle of proportionality rendered incarceration inappropriate.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The defence challenged two police actions: video surveillance of the accused using a toilet in a monitored cell, and the removal and inspection of the accused's underwire bra.

The court found no Charter violation regarding the toilet surveillance due to the poor video resolution and metal plate obstruction.

However, the court found that the removal and inspection of the bra constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Despite this breach, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings or exclude the breath test evidence, applying the three-part test from R. v. Babos.

The court found the breach did not meet the threshold for a stay and imposed a sentence adjustment as remedy.

The defendant was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit and possession of marijuana.

The defendant conceded guilt to the marijuana charge and did not challenge evidence supporting the impaired driving charge.

However, he sought a stay of proceedings, alleging he was subjected to an unlawful strip search incident to his arrest.

The Crown argued either that no strip search occurred or that a reduction in sentence was the appropriate remedy.

The court found that a strip search did occur without justification and granted a stay of proceedings on the impaired driving charge, citing a pattern of unlawful strip searches by the police service and the need to defend constitutional protections.

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of assault with a weapon, assault, and threatening following a four-day trial.

The sentencing decision addresses a pattern of domestic violence spanning several years, including an incident on May 9, 2011, where the defendant threw boiling water on his spouse and infant child.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling and weapons prohibition.

The decision emphasizes denunciation and specific deterrence in the context of domestic violence, while considering the defendant's prior brain injury and extensive criminal history of violence.

The defendant was charged with eight offences arising from domestic violence incidents: two counts of assault with a weapon (May 9, 2011), four counts of assault (December 30, 2010; February 10, 2011; April 2011), and two counts of threatening death (April 2011).

The Crown alleged a pattern of abuse against the defendant's wife.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming the complainant fabricated the charges to prevent him from obtaining custody of the children after learning he intended to leave the marriage.

The court found the defendant guilty of six counts (assault with a weapon on May 9, 2011; assault on December 30, 2010; assault on February 10, 2011; assault on April 2011; and threatening death on April 2011) and not guilty of one count of assault (April 2011 choking incident) and one count of threatening death (shooting threat).

The court rejected the defendant's credibility based on his delay in surrendering to police and his manipulative conduct, and accepted the complainant's detailed and corroborated testimony.