Brock Jones

The applicant, Parkland Corporation, sought an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the respondent gas station operator from selling fuel purchased from third parties, in breach of their consignment and branding agreement.

The court applied the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction, finding a strong prima facie case of contractual breach.

The court also found that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm to its business model and market share, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The Crown applied to admit a videotaped statement of a deceased witness under the principled exception to hearsay in a second-degree murder trial.

The witness had an extensive criminal record and was released on her own recognizance shortly before giving the statement, raising concerns about her motive to fabricate.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the inability to cross-examine the witness on her motives would seriously impair the respondent's right to make full answer and defence, thereby failing the threshold reliability requirement.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

Following his arrest, the police delayed his right to counsel, questioned him about a knife found during a search incident to arrest, and subjected him to a strip search based on the discovery of the knife and marijuana.

The court found that the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the refusal would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded and the charge was dismissed.

Two appellants, T.F. and M.W., appealed their convictions for first degree murder in the execution-style killing of their friend Tyrone Bracken.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, based on text messages, video surveillance, and post-offence conduct.

The trial judge found that the appellants participated in a pre-arranged plan to murder the victim.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in using post-offence conduct to infer their participation and intent, committed a Villaroman error by reversing the burden of proof, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly used the appellants' failure to express shock or horror at the killing as circumstantial evidence of their knowledge and participation in a planned murder.

The defendant was charged with Operation Impaired and Blow Over 80 following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant applied to exclude breath test results based on alleged Charter breaches, including violations of section 8 (search and seizure), section 10(b) (right to counsel), and section 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

The court found that the officer breached the defendant's section 10(b) rights by failing to inform him immediately of his right to counsel and by facilitating access to a paralegal rather than a lawyer, without explaining the distinction.

The court excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also found a reasonable doubt regarding care or control of the vehicle and impairment without the breath readings.

Both charges were dismissed.

Two youths, aged 16 at the time of the offence, were convicted of first degree murder in the execution-style killing of another youth.

The Crown applied to have them sentenced as adults.

The youth court judge allowed the Crown's application and imposed life sentences with ten years' parole ineligibility.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the adult sentences, arguing that the youth court judge erred in concluding that the intensive rehabilitative custody supervision (IRCS) program would not adequately address their rehabilitation needs and that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness had not been properly considered.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the youth court judge had made reversible errors in his analysis of the IRCS program and that the Crown had failed to overcome the presumption of diminished moral culpability.

The court substituted youth sentences with IRCS orders.

During a jury trial for a slip and fall in a parking lot, the defendants (the property owner and the winter maintenance contractor) conditionally settled their crossclaims.

The plaintiff sought disclosure of the settlement agreement.

The court ordered the agreement disclosed to the court and then to the plaintiff, finding that it altered the adversarial landscape.

Consequently, the court ruled that the defendants were no longer adverse in interest and prohibited defence counsel from asking leading questions during the cross-examination of each other's witnesses, except on narrow issues where adversity remained.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action moved to strike the jury following the defendants' opening statements, arguing that defence counsel made improper arguments, impugned plaintiff's counsel, and injected personal opinions.

The court reviewed the impugned statements and found that while some comments crossed the line into argument and unfairly bolstered credibility, the transgressions were minimally prejudicial.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the jury, concluding that a short curative instruction would adequately address the issues without compromising the plaintiff's right to a fair trial.

In a slip and fall action arising from an incident in a grocery store parking lot, the parties raised evidentiary issues regarding the admissibility of business records before the commencement of a jury trial.

The plaintiff sought to introduce Ministry of Transportation records regarding weather and road conditions, while the defendants sought to introduce daily work sheets to establish their snow and ice clearing system.

The court found both sets of records to be logically relevant to the live issues of prevailing weather conditions and the defendants' response.

The court admitted both sets of records, noting that any potential prejudice from the MTO records could be addressed with a limiting instruction to the jury.

The applicant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to perfect it, and a subsequent application to re-open the appeal was denied.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and to introduce fresh evidence regarding a surveillance video and a deportation order resulting from his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found it had jurisdiction under s. 839 of the Criminal Code, admitted the fresh evidence regarding the deportation order, and allowed the appeal in part, permitting the applicant to re-open his summary conviction appeal as it relates to sentence only.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court judge's decision dismissing his application to reopen his appeal and extend the time to file a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction under section 839(1) of the Criminal Code to hear an appeal from a decision refusing to extend time or reopen an appeal.

However, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that despite the lower court applying the test for an extension of time rather than reopening an appeal, there was no injustice.

The applicant had delayed five years without reasonable explanation, and there was no merit to the proposed appeal from his convictions for assault with intent to resist arrest and carrying a concealed weapon.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference, arguing trial unfairness.

At trial, Crown counsel breached an agreement not to cross-examine the appellant about his post-arrest conduct, specifically his departure from the jurisdiction and subsequent conviction for failing to attend court.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown's ill-advised question opened the door to this evidence, prejudicing the appellant's credibility in a case that turned entirely on credibility.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug possession.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, specifically cheques in the appellant's name found in the bedroom where the drugs were located.

The Court of Appeal held that no reasonable jury could conclude the appellant was in possession of the drugs based on the entirety of the evidence, as the absence of evidence left open other plausible theories inconsistent with guilt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault after having sexual intercourse with a highly intoxicated complainant.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to properly account for his use of an interpreter when assessing his credibility and finding he feigned confusion during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or her conclusion that the appellant's evidence was replete with inconsistencies.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and breach of probation arising from a domestic dispute.

At trial, the judge erroneously excluded exculpatory statements made by the appellant to a police officer.

The Crown conceded the error but argued the curative proviso should apply.

The Court of Appeal held that the error was not harmless or trivial, as the convictions relied heavily on the complainant's credibility, which was contested.

The curative proviso could not be applied, and the convictions were quashed.

The appellants appealed their convictions for various firearms offences, arguing that the trial judge erred in identifying them from video surveillance footage, ignoring the lack of evidence from a search warrant, rejecting exculpatory witness testimony, and finding that the objects they carried were loaded restricted firearms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the principles for video identification, adequately considered the search warrant evidence, reasonably assessed witness credibility, and drew a logical inference that the firearms were loaded given the circumstances of the altercation.

The appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible for breach of recognizance and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight, refusal to take medication, and intended cannabis use, which experts testified would increase his risk of physical aggression.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for the forcible seizure of a child and other offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention at a secure forensic unit.

The appellant sought an absolute or conditional discharge, or a transfer to a different facility to access a larger gay community.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk to the public was reasonable and supported by expert evidence indicating he remained untreated and unstable.

The court also upheld the Board's refusal to transfer the appellant, noting the request was premature and lacked therapeutic justification.

The appellant appealed his effective sentence of 16 months following guilty pleas to driving offences and possession of stolen property.

The trial judge had imposed a 9-month sentence (in addition to 7 months of pretrial custody) to allow the appellant to attend the Ontario Correctional Institute, which required a 9-month minimum.

After the appellant was rejected from the program, he appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to the 5 months originally requested by the Crown, noting the appellant's genuine remorse.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, as well as his 9.5-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the firearms convictions, finding no misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's constructive possession of a loaded handgun found under a mattress near him.

However, the court quashed the drug and proceeds of crime convictions, finding no evidence connecting the appellant to the drugs or money found in the residence.

The overall sentence remained fit and the sentence appeal was dismissed.