C. Afonso

The moving parties sought an order allowing the registration of a Certificate of Pending Litigation against recreational real estate near Kenora, Ontario.

The property was transferred two days after the death of the original owner through a right of survivorship and then to the respondent Parks, allegedly as a gift.

The estate trustee and beneficiary challenged the validity of the transfer due to suspicious circumstances and the failure to produce the transfer documents.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing a full hearing was necessary.

The court granted the Certificate of Pending Litigation, finding the test was met and the purpose of the procedure justified its issuance despite the motion being brought on notice.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and principles from *Schreiber v. Mulroney* and *Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario*, ordered the plaintiffs to pay partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto, which the plaintiffs had opposed.

The court applied principles from Schreiber v. Mulroney and Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario, considering Rule 57 factors and proportionality.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants partial indemnity costs of $2,980.00.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and determining that Toronto was a substantially better venue, given that the project, contractual agreement, and all events giving rise to the claim were located in Toronto, as were the parties and their counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, arguing that Toronto was the more appropriate venue.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and that Toronto was a substantially better venue, based on a holistic application of Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) factors, including the location of the project, the events giving rise to the claim, and the parties' residences.

The defendants, an appraisal service, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a negligence action by the plaintiff mortgage financing company, MCAP, on the basis that the action was commenced beyond the applicable limitation period.

MCAP alleged that the defendants negligently overvalued a property in a 2012 appraisal, leading to a loss on a 2013 mortgage loan.

The court found that MCAP had sufficient knowledge to discover its claim by June 15, 2016, or at the latest, September 6, 2016, when it received various post-default valuations and opinions questioning the original appraisal's accuracy.

The court rejected MCAP's argument that its internal protocol justified delaying discovery until the property sale was complete or a retrospective valuation was obtained.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought extensive disclosure from the Crown and Peel Regional Police (PRP) under Stinchcombe and O'Connor, and a sealing order for application materials.

The disclosure requests stemmed from suspicions of targeting and police misconduct related to a vehicle stop and subsequent arrest for firearms and drug offences.

The court denied most disclosure requests where the information did not exist (e.g., historical CPIC snapshots, specific informant recruitment policies) or where likely relevance was not met.

However, the court ordered the production of officer notes and "will say" statements regarding an off-camera interview where the applicant was asked to become a confidential informant, and specific notes of an officer related to a BOLO broadcast.

The sealing order request was denied as the applicant failed to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test for restricting the open court principle.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after CBSA officers found the drug in food cans in his luggage.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit the accused's statements to CBSA and RCMP officers as voluntary, while the accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude the statements and drugs due to alleged arbitrary detention, an unreasonable strip search, and sleep deprivation.

The court found the statements voluntary, noting that while keeping the accused awake was minor misconduct, it did not induce the statements.

The court also dismissed the Charter application, finding no detention during routine customs questioning and no unreasonableness in the brief strip search.

A mid-trial ruling also admitted a Certificate of Analyst.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of heroin and methamphetamine, after police found him sleeping in an apartment where drugs were hidden.

The accused admitted to possessing a small amount of methamphetamine found next to him but denied knowledge of the other drugs.

The court applied the W.(D.) test and the rule for circumstantial evidence, finding that while the accused's testimony was partially compromised, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the only rational inference was that the accused had knowledge and control of the hidden drugs.

The accused was acquitted of the cocaine and heroin charges but convicted of methamphetamine possession.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking relating to approximately 10 kg of heroin hidden in carpets imported from Pakistan.

The court applied the Shephard test and the Arcuri framework for circumstantial evidence.

Olufeko and Onaola consented to committal on all counts.

Ajiri was discharged on importing and conspiracy to import counts but committed on possession counts.

Fanikayode contested committal on all three counts.

The court committed Fanikayode to trial, finding sufficient evidence that he conducted counter-surveillance at the cargo terminal and storage facility, from which a jury could infer his membership in the conspiracy and knowledge of the controlled drug shipment.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed after the respondent pleaded guilty to offences under ss. 153(a) and 153(c) of the Customs Act for falsely declaring imported goods and wilfully attempting to evade duties and taxes exceeding $20,000.

The sentencing judge had granted a conditional discharge with probation and community service.

The appeal court found the sentencing judge erred by concluding the respondent had not deliberately attempted to evade duties despite the guilty plea to a wilful offence.

While the judge properly considered civil penalties and immigration consequences, the deliberate nature of the offence made a conditional discharge contrary to the public interest.

The appeal court set aside the discharge and imposed fines while maintaining probation and community service.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for importing heroin into Canada and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences involved approximately 398 grams of heroin imported through a parcel shipment and an additional quantity of heroin located at the offender’s residence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and purity of the drug, the offender’s role as an organizer rather than a courier, and the sophistication of the importation scheme.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, family circumstances, and employment history.

Applying the proportionality principle, the court imposed consecutive sentences totalling twelve years’ imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to importing 2.2 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The court considered the established sentencing ranges for cocaine importation set out by the Court of Appeal, which indicate sentences of six to eight years for multi‑kilogram quantities, while recognizing that ranges are guidelines and may be adjusted based on aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors included the serious nature of cocaine importation and the significant quantity involved.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of prior criminal record, genuine remorse, strong community support, and a guilty plea.

Balancing denunciation and general deterrence with the offender’s personal circumstances, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence below the Crown’s request but above the defence position.