Breese Davies

The respondent, Elena Cherny, leased a house to the applicants, 10381187 Canada Inc. and Elias Markos, for a 10-year term, with the understanding that it would be renovated into six units for short-term rentals.

Cherny completed the renovations without proper planning permission or building permits.

After a City of Toronto Order to Comply, Cherny restored the house to a single-family dwelling and locked out the applicants.

The applicants sought specific performance of the lease and damages, registering a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the property.

Cherny brought a motion to discharge the CPL.

The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for any breach of the lease, as the property was not unique in the commercial context of short-term rentals, and specific performance was not possible given the unlikelihood of obtaining the necessary zoning variances.

The CPL was discharged with conditions to protect the applicants' potential damages award, and a trial was ordered to determine the legality of the lease and whether Cherny breached it.

The applicant, Courtney Campbell, sought relief from forfeiture and re-entry into commercial premises after the landlord, 1493951 Ontario Inc., changed the locks following a police raid on Campbell's unlicensed cannabis store.

The court found Campbell had a valid sub-lease and standing to seek relief.

However, it determined Campbell breached the lease by operating an illegal cannabis business without proper licenses or exemptions.

The landlord was entitled to rely on a prior notice of breach from August 2019, as Campbell had misled them into believing the breach was cured.

The court dismissed Campbell's application for relief from forfeiture, finding the breach serious and the forfeiture lawful, and that it would not be inequitable or unjust to deny relief.

The accused, Dwight Deshawn John, was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving an 11-year-old complainant (JN).

The court considered the defence of 'mistake of age' for sexual interference and 'honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent' for sexual assault.

The court accepted the accused's subjective belief that JN was 18 years old and found that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age, leading to an acquittal on the sexual interference charge.

However, the court found that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain JN's consent for sexual activity, leading to a conviction for sexual assault.

The applicant, Courtney Campbell, sought an interim order for relief from forfeiture and re-entry into his cannabis retail store after the landlord changed the locks.

The court applied the three-part test for interim injunctive relief from RJR MacDonald.

While acknowledging serious issues to be tried regarding the sub-lease and forfeiture, the court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored granting the interim order.

This was primarily because the applicant's business was operating without the required provincial and federal licenses for cannabis sales, rendering any lost profits from such an operation not the type of harm the court should consider.

Furthermore, allowing the unlicensed business to reopen posed a risk of charges to the landlord.

The interim relief was dismissed.

The Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1724 brought an application against a unit owner, Evgeni Evdassin, for a compliance order to replace defective Kitec pipes and for various other permanent prohibitory orders, seeking costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court granted the compliance order for pipe replacement, as the unit owner had largely consented to this, but dismissed the broader prohibitory orders, finding the Condominium had over-reached.

On the issue of costs, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, emphasizing that section 134(5) of the Condominium Act provides an enforcement mechanism for actual costs but does not dictate the court's assessment of costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, reducing the amount claimed due to the Condominium's partial success and over-reaching on certain requests.

Stanley Almeida, a patient with delusional disorder, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to or refusing treatment.

Dr. Andrew Morgan, his psychiatrist, brought a motion for an interim order to administer intravenous antipsychotic medication (Invega Sustenna) pending the appeal's resolution.

The court denied Almeida's adjournment request, citing urgency due to his deteriorating health and the unlikelihood of counsel being available quickly.

Applying the criteria under s. 19 of the Health Care Consent Act, the court found that the treatment would substantially improve Almeida's condition, benefits outweighed risks, it was the least restrictive option given his non-compliance, and it was necessary before the appeal.

The motion was granted, authorizing treatment until the appeal is resolved, and the appeal was expedited.

The defendants, Chris Schoonderwoerd and National Bank Financial, brought a motion to stay an action commenced by Edward Jones in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Edward Jones alleged that Schoonderwoerd, a former investment advisor, breached non-solicitation and non-disclosure terms of his employment contract, with the assistance of National Bank Financial.

The court acknowledged jurisdiction in Ontario but found Alberta to be the clearly more appropriate forum, considering the location of parties, performance and alleged breach of contract, and the vast majority of relevant witnesses.

The motion to stay the Ontario proceedings was granted.

The defendant, Dr. Vaidyanathan, brought a motion to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim, specifically allegations of a pattern of misconduct (similar fact pleadings) and claims for exemplary, punitive, and aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the similar fact pleadings, finding they possessed significant probative value, particularly in relation to claims concerning the defendant's knowledge, skill, experience, and fiduciary duty, which outweighed any added complexity.

However, the court granted the motion to strike the claims for exemplary, punitive, and aggravated damages due to insufficient pleading, granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend their Statement of Claim within 60 days to provide a proper basis for these damages.

The Condominium Corporation sought compliance orders against a unit owner for refusing access to replace defective Kitec pipes and for alleged abusive and interfering behaviour.

The court ordered the owner to allow access for pipe replacement and to pay associated costs, finding he had interfered with the work.

However, the court declined to issue broader, indefinite compliance orders regarding future conduct, finding the alleged misconduct was not sufficiently persistent or egregious to warrant such extensive restrictions, and that some evidence was inadmissible hearsay.

The appellant, Mark Waters, appealed a Master's decision ordering him to pay $25,000 as security for costs.

Waters, a former CFO, sued his lawyers, Richard Furlong and Furlong Collins, for negligent advice regarding the tax implications of a severance agreement.

After commencing the action, Waters moved to Nova Scotia, prompting the respondents to seek security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

The Master granted the order, finding Waters had not provided robust evidence of easily realizable assets in a reciprocating jurisdiction.

On appeal, Waters argued the Master erred in assessing his assets and the merits of the case.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Master's exercise of discretion, finding no palpable and overriding error in the assessment of Waters' evidence regarding assets or the preliminary assessment of the case's merits.

Leone Bruno brought an application to exclude evidence obtained via a search warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Crown relied on a heavily redacted ITO to protect a confidential informant's identity, necessitating a judicial summary under the R. v. Garofoli framework.

The court assessed the adequacy of the judicial summary and other disclosure, finding it sufficient for the defence to mount a challenge.

Upon reviewing the unredacted ITO (with one minor excision), the court applied the Debot criteria (credibility, compelling nature, corroboration) and concluded that it provided reasonable grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court also found that the affiant made full, fair, and frank disclosure regarding prior incident reports.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no s. 8 Charter violation was found.

Chukwuemeka Madumelu was sentenced for multiple counts of importing heroin into Canada and one count of possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Toronto charges), and an additional count of importing heroin while on bail (Brampton charge).

The court found the accused was more than a mere courier, actively involved in logistical arrangements for large-scale heroin importation.

Aggravating factors included the quantity and purity of heroin, the sophistication of the scheme, and re-offending while on bail.

Mitigating factors included community support, a dated criminal record, and an early guilty plea for the Brampton charge.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 19 years, while the defence sought 12 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, applying the totality principle to ensure proportionality, and granted 465 days of credit for pre-trial detention and stringent house arrest bail conditions.

A 10-year weapons prohibition order was also issued, but a DNA order was declined.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized from his vehicle, arguing a six-hour delay in accessing counsel violated his s. 10(b) rights.

The court found the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) rights due to inadequate resource allocation, which constituted a serious institutional disregard for Charter rights.

The evidence was found to be temporally and contextually connected to the breach.

Applying the *Grant* factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, thus excluding the heroin and other items seized from the vehicle.

The accused, Sabrullah Khan, was charged with trafficking heroin.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the transfer of a package containing 991.36 grams of heroin to an individual (Mr. Rilling) whom Khan did not know, in suspicious circumstances.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Khan knew the package contained heroin or was wilfully blind to its contents.

The court considered the totality of circumstantial evidence, including the absence of direct evidence and the evidence that Mr. Hatemi (the drug network leader) often employed "blind couriers." The court found that while an inference of knowledge was reasonable, it was not the *only* reasonable inference, as it was also plausible that Khan was an unwitting courier.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove knowledge or wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt, and Khan was found not guilty.