C. Boswell

The defendant, a 31-year-old Indigenous male, was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against his two step-sisters.

The court applied the principles from Friesen regarding the gravity of sexual offences against children, while also considering the Gladue factors related to the defendant's Indigenous background and intergenerational trauma.

The court sentenced the defendant to a global term of 7 years in custody (1.5 years for one victim, 5.5 years for the other), along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, SOIRA order, and a section 161 prohibition order.

The accused, facing drug trafficking charges, brought a Garofoli application to challenge the validity of a search warrant executed at his motel room.

The warrant was based on tips from three confidential informants and police surveillance of a suspected drug transaction at a nearby drive-thru.

The court granted the accused limited leave to cross-examine the police affiant.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the circumstances, including the informant tips and corroborating police surveillance, provided a reasonable basis for the issuing justice to authorize the warrant.

Following a procedural motion where the moving defendants successfully obtained an order for a further and better affidavit of documents and written interrogatories, the parties could not agree on costs.

The moving defendants sought $14,217.87 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs argued for no costs due to divided success, or alternatively $3,500.

The court found the moving defendants were largely successful and awarded them costs fixed at $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis, noting the motion was straightforward and did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

Following a successful summary judgment motion discharging a mortgage as statute-barred, the plaintiff sought costs of $33,557.18, arguing for substantial indemnity costs based on a $100 offer to settle.

The court found the offer contained no real element of compromise and applied an exception to Rule 49.10.

Applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,394.32.

The accused, an inmate at a correctional centre, faced a 16-count indictment involving allegations of sexual assault, assault, and threatening against seven fellow inmates.

The accused brought an application to sever the counts into three separate trials, arguing that a joint trial would result in impermissible propensity reasoning and prejudice.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the counts shared a strong factual nexus and that it intended to adduce count-to-count similar act evidence.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Last and concluded that the truth-seeking function of the process would be best served by a joint trial, as the Crown's anticipated similar act evidence application was reasonably viable and there was a strong factual nexus across all counts.

The severance application was dismissed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a statement made by the accused to police following his arrest for drug trafficking and manslaughter.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary because police failed to record their interactions with the accused from the time of his arrest until the formal interview, relying on R. v. Moore-McFarlane.

The court distinguished Moore-McFarlane, finding the uncontradicted testimony of the police officers credible and reliable.

The court concluded there were no threats, promises, or oppressive circumstances, and the accused's minor injury during arrest did not affect his operating mind.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The Crown sought to qualify an OPP officer as an expert witness to interpret coded text messages and provide context on the illicit drug trade in a trial for drug trafficking and manslaughter.

The defence did not contest the admissibility of the evidence but reserved the right to cross-examine on potential bias.

The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks, finding the proposed evidence logically relevant, necessary, and the officer properly qualified.

The officer was qualified to provide opinion evidence on the indicia of trafficking, street values of drugs, and the interpretation of coded language.

The applicant landlord applied to enforce Minutes of Settlement resolving a commercial lease dispute with the respondent tenant.

The settlement provided for a rent reduction contingent on the tenant's revenues, requiring the tenant to provide monthly HST returns.

The tenant failed to file or provide the returns for several months.

The court found the tenant in breach of the settlement and the duty of good faith performance, ordering the release of $16,155.77 held in trust to the landlord to offset outstanding rent.

The moving defendants in a $3.5 million debt collection action brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to produce a further and better Affidavit of Documents and to produce the elderly plaintiff for oral discovery.

The court found the plaintiffs' initial Affidavit of Documents deficient for failing to list relevant banking and loan records, ordering a further and better affidavit.

However, relying on medical evidence of the plaintiff's frail health, the court declined to order her attendance at oral discovery, directing instead that discovery proceed via written interrogatories.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant corporation and its principal for the outstanding balances on two commercial loans.

The defendants argued that the loan agreements were frustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting government-mandated lockdowns, which severely impacted their restaurant business.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that while the pandemic made performance more difficult, it did not render the contractual obligations radically different from what was agreed upon.

The doctrine of frustration did not apply to relieve the defendants of their repayment obligations.

The appellant, convicted of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a 14-year-old complainant, applied for bail pending his summary conviction appeal.

The court applied the criteria for bail pending appeal, finding that while the appeal grounds were weak, they were not frivolous.

The court further held that the appellant's detention was not necessary in the public interest, noting his low-moderate risk of re-offence and his compliance with previous release conditions.

Bail pending appeal was granted on strict terms, including a surety.

The accused, charged with manslaughter and trafficking following a fatal drug overdose, brought an O'Connor application seeking third-party records, including cell phone records and mental health treatment records of the deceased and a key Crown witness.

The court found that the mental health records did not meet the likely relevance threshold, as the request relied on stereotypical assumptions about drug users and mental illness rather than case-specific evidence.

The application for the cell phone records of the witness's mother was granted to proceed to the second stage of the O'Connor analysis, while the remaining requests were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to discharge a collateral mortgage, arguing that the defendant's enforcement action was statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The defendant claimed a $4,000 payment was made in May 2010, which would have reset the 10-year limitation period.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found the defendant's evidence of the payment—a single ambiguous bank book entry—insufficient to meet her onus of proving the claim was brought within the limitation period.

The plaintiff's motion was granted and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought an action against the defendant general contractor to enforce a construction lien and for breach of contract regarding structural steel and miscellaneous metals work on a school project.

The court found that the parties had entered into two separate contracts.

The plaintiff failed to preserve its lien rights for the structural steel contract in a timely manner, but its claim was permitted to proceed as a personal judgment under section 63 of the Construction Lien Act.

The plaintiff's lien for the miscellaneous metals contract was validly preserved.

The court conducted a detailed accounting of the base contract prices, approved extras, and valid charge-backs for deficient or incomplete work performed by third parties.

Ultimately, the court awarded the plaintiff a net judgment of $99,346.83 across both contracts.

The plaintiff brought an action for fraud and misappropriation against a former employee and the operators of a gas station, alleging a scheme to overcharge for fuel.

Both parties brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery.

The court ordered both parties to answer specific questions, directed the defendant to re-attend for a brief further examination, and denied the defendants' request to examine a second representative of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was awarded $3,500 in costs.

The offender was convicted of internet child luring following a police sting operation where he believed he was communicating with a 15-year-old girl.

The court considered the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 172.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, finding it unconstitutional based on binding precedent.

Weighing the offender's difficult background as a refugee against the gravity of the offence and the Supreme Court's direction to increase sentences for child sexual offences, the court imposed a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment, one year of probation, and ancillary orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant raised numerous defenses, including intoxication, misrepresentation, non est factum, undue influence, duress, and unconscionability, largely blaming the dual real estate agent.

The court found that none of the defenses raised a genuine issue for trial, noting the defendant's lack of credibility and failure to provide supporting evidence.

The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the motion was an inappropriate request for partial summary judgment due to an outstanding third-party claim against the real estate agent.

The court awarded the plaintiff $168,962.63 in damages and declined to stay the enforcement of the judgment.

The third party, an appraisal company, moved under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike a third party claim brought by the defendants for negligent misrepresentation.

The defendants alleged the appraiser negligently undervalued a property, causing a purchaser to back out of a sale.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding it plain and obvious that the claim could not succeed because the appraiser owed no duty of care to the defendants, having prepared the report exclusively for a lender, and because the defendants did not rely on the appraisal.

Following the successful dismissal of the plaintiff's defamation claim under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, the defendant sought full indemnity costs of approximately $29,500.

The plaintiff argued that full indemnity costs were inappropriate because the claim had some merit and the defendant's statements were demonstrably false and reckless.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that the lawsuit was not a traditional SLAPP and was driven by the defendant's recklessness.

The court rebutted the presumption of full indemnity costs and awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000.

Following a 19-day construction lien trial, a procedural dispute arose regarding closing submissions.

The defendant filed a surrebuttal that raised a new defence under the Limitations Act, 2002, and implicitly alleged professional negligence against the plaintiff's counsel.

The plaintiff requested a right of reply.

The court granted the plaintiff a limited right of reply, finding that trial fairness dictated the plaintiff must have an opportunity to respond to a newly raised, unpleaded limitations defence.