Brennan Sacevich

Antonio Manzo was charged with four firearms-related counts stemming from an incident on May 6, 2020, where a Toyota Tundra was shot multiple times.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including civilian observations of the accused's vehicle near the scene, the subsequent discovery of a firearm (Ruger rifle) in his possession, and forensic evidence linking a spent shell casing from the scene to the Ruger.

The court found all Crown witnesses credible and concluded that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the accused fired the Ruger at the Tundra, causing the damage.

Manzo was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant, Brent Mehagan, pleaded guilty to multiple charges including five counts of making child pornography, one count of criminal harassment, and five counts of voyeurism involving over 240 victims.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the systematic and covert nature of the crimes, the large number of victims, the significant psychological impact on victims and the community, and the defendant's prior related conviction for possession of child pornography.

Mitigating factors included the voluntary plea, acknowledgment of the scope of harm, expressed remorse, and engagement in counselling.

Gladue factors were also considered due to the defendant's Indigenous background and disassociation from cultural roots.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly for child-related offenses, while also considering the defendant's progress towards rehabilitation.

A total sentence of 38 months imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and onerous house arrest conditions.

Ancillary orders included DNA sample, lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration, a 10-year prohibition from certain public places and internet use for unlawful purposes or photographing females under 16, and forfeiture of seized devices.

This decision addresses an application under sections 276 and 278.94 of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of evidence of a complainant's sexual activity in a sexual assault trial.

The accused sought to adduce evidence of prior consensual penetrative intercourse with the complainant to explain the presence of his DNA, and evidence of other male DNA found on the complainant to suggest an alternative perpetrator.

The court ruled that both types of evidence were admissible, with limitations, as they were relevant to issues at trial and had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, after considering the factors in subsection 276(3).

M.K. was convicted of indecent assault and sexual assault against his niece, R.K., occurring between 1981 and 1987 when R.K. was a minor.

The court applied the Kienapple principle, entering a conditional stay on the indecent assault charge and sentencing M.K. on the sexual assault conviction.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

Considering M.K.'s Indigenous background, advanced age, lack of criminal record, and the victim's impact statement, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The judge found M.K. showed no remorse and was a poor candidate for a conditional sentence, ultimately imposing a 15-month period of incarceration (less credit for pre-trial custody) followed by 18 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

The defendants brought a motion in Small Claims Court to strike an amended plaintiff’s claim alleging negligent construction of an in-ground swimming pool.

The defendants argued the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs allegedly discovered their loss in 2009 and commenced the claim outside the two‑year limitation period.

The court held that it was not clear on the pleadings when the claim was discovered, particularly given allegations that the defendants continued attempting to remedy the deficiencies through 2010.

Because it was possible that a proceeding was not yet an appropriate means to remedy the dispute during ongoing repair efforts, the limitation defence was not virtually certain to succeed.

The court declined to strike the claim and left the limitation issue to be determined at trial.

The plaintiff alleged that he and another individual formed a partnership with a third person to develop a nightclub and microbrewery venture, and that the defendants diverted the opportunity by securing a lease and operating the business themselves.

The plaintiff also claimed standing as assignee of the co‑venturer’s alleged cause of action through security agreements relating to unrelated debts.

The court found that the plaintiff was not a partner in the venture, noting his absence from key negotiations and documentation such as the letter of intent to lease.

The court further held that the co‑venturer’s refusal or inability to provide financing effectively constituted withdrawal from the partnership, permitting the remaining participant to proceed independently.

As a result, neither the co‑venturer nor the plaintiff as alleged assignee had a viable cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or diversion of opportunity.