Brian D. Barrie

The plaintiff, Craig Johnston, sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully suing the defendant Municipality for wrongful termination, being awarded damages for breach of contract, punitive damages, and aggravated damages.

The Municipality did not dispute entitlement to costs but argued for partial indemnity or a lower full recovery amount.

The court awarded Johnston costs on a substantial indemnity basis, primarily due to the Municipality's failure to make a reasonable settlement offer and Johnston's successful offer.

However, the court reduced the quantum sought by Johnston from approximately $260,000 to $160,000, finding the higher amount disproportionate to the non-exemplary damages awarded.

The plaintiff, Craig Johnston, Chief Building Official for the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, was summarily dismissed for alleged conflict of interest and deceit.

The Municipality claimed just cause based on Johnston designing and inspecting projects within the Municipality and allegedly concealing these conflicts.

The court found that Johnston was indeed in a conflict of interest but that the Municipality was estopped from relying on it due to its prior knowledge and approval of his private design work and its failure to appoint a backup inspector.

The court also found no evidence of deceit or fraud on Johnston's part.

The dismissal was deemed wrongful, and the court awarded damages for breach of contract, aggravated damages for the bad faith manner of dismissal, and punitive damages for the high-handed conduct of the Municipality.

The accused, Leroy David Dirckx, was charged with producing cannabis marihuana.

The Crown's case relied on an Agreed Statement of Fact and photographs, while the accused testified, denying involvement.

The court considered whether the accused produced the substance through "cultivating" or "harvesting." The court rejected the Crown's "harvesting" argument based on the accused's admission of cutting down unhealthy plants for medicinal salvage, distinguishing it from large-scale harvesting for drying.

However, based on circumstantial evidence including proximity to grow sites, prior indoor cultivation, financial motive (high hydro costs), and photographic evidence of active involvement with plants and tools, the court found the accused guilty of cultivating or helping to cultivate the outdoor marihuana plants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's testimony was deemed illogical and contradictory.

Leroy Dirckx was found guilty of production of cannabis marihuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after a non-jury trial.

The grow sites were located on a third party's property, but the production was for personal medicinal use, not trafficking.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 60-90 days, while the Defence requested a fine of $3000-$5000.

Considering the principles of sentencing, particularly parity with a co-accused who received a Conditional Sentence Order, and the fact that a Conditional Sentence Order was not available to Dirckx, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, a secondary DNA order, and a victim fine surcharge.

The appellant was convicted after a judge-alone trial of dangerous driving while racing causing bodily harm and dangerous driving while racing causing death.

The Crown's case was that the appellant and Tyler Dodd were racing their vehicles on Highway 21 near Owen Sound when Dodd lost control, crossed into oncoming traffic, and struck another vehicle, killing Dodd and injuring the other driver.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three grounds: challenging the finding that the vehicles were racing at the time of the accident, challenging the admissibility of his statement to police, and challenging the causation finding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding all findings of the trial judge.

Following a jury trial, the accused was convicted of public mischief and attempted fraud over $5,000 arising from a staged vehicle crash and false report to police and an insurer.

The offender caused his vehicle to roll down a hill and then falsely reported it stolen in an attempt to obtain insurance proceeds.

The court considered the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, supportive background, and positive presentence report as mitigating factors.

Emphasizing general deterrence for planned insurance fraud, the court held that probation alone would be inadequate.

A short intermittent custodial sentence followed by probation, along with restitution and a secondary DNA order, was imposed.

The offender was found guilty of breaking and entering with intent after entering a female friend's home without permission and rummaging through her undergarments.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought probation, an intermittent sentence, or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and the significant breach of trust, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The offender was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently, followed by three years of probation, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault causing bodily harm under Section 267(b) of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred on June 18, 2011, in the Town of Hanover and Township of Normandy.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, the accused's spouse, who alleged two separate violent assaults during a high school reunion weekend.

The accused provided a materially different account, claiming the complainant initiated physical attacks on him while driving, and that he acted only in self-defense and to restrain her.

The court found credibility issues with the complainant's account, particularly the discrepancy between her description of severe beatings and the relatively minor injuries documented.

The accused's evidence, while not entirely convincing, raised reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant acquittal on both counts.