Charles T. Hackland

The court sentenced the accused for incest and sexual assault against his daughter, committed over approximately five years beginning when the complainant was 16.

Applying the sentencing principles for sexual offences against children, including the primacy of denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code and the guidance in Friesen, the court treated the prolonged abuse, parental breach of trust, grooming, vulnerability, and resulting pregnancy as major aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s lack of criminal record, pro-social history, low apparent risk of reoffending, absence of violence, and advanced age.

A penitentiary sentence of 10 years on the incest count and 7 years concurrent on the sexual assault count was imposed, together with ancillary orders.

The applicant, a first mortgagee, sought a declaration of entitlement to a yield maintenance payment of approximately $1.5 million following the court-appointed receiver's sale of two commercial properties.

The mortgagors and a second mortgagee opposed the payment, arguing it was not contractually authorized, offended the anti-deprivation rule, violated the Interest Act, and that the receiver's sale constituted a realization on security triggering the equity of redemption.

The court held that the mortgages were closed and, under common law, the mortgagee was entitled to lost future interest upon early discharge.

The court rejected the statutory and common law defenses, noting the court orders explicitly deemed the mortgagee was not realizing on its security.

The applicant was awarded $1,473,141.82.

The defendants, engineering consultants, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a crossclaim by the co-defendant developer.

The crossclaim was a subrogated claim advanced by the developer's insurer.

The moving parties argued they were additional insureds under the developer's wrap-up liability policy and thus protected by a waiver of subrogation clause.

The developer argued the waiver should not apply because the moving parties' professional services were excluded from coverage under the policy.

The court held that the moving parties were additional insureds and the clear language of the policy's waiver of subrogation clause applied, regardless of the professional services exclusion.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the crossclaim was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and various firearms offences after shooting a man during a drug deal.

The accused testified that he attended the apartment to sell drugs, but the victim pulled a gun and attempted to rob him.

A struggle ensued, the accused gained control of the gun, and shot the victim as he lunged at him.

The court found the accused's version of events plausible and held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in self-defence.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder and related assault charges, but convicted of firearms offences for possessing the restricted weapon after fleeing the scene.

The Attorney General brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act to approve a settlement with the mother of the deceased, whose estate's assets were subject to civil forfeiture proceedings as alleged proceeds of crime.

The mother claimed she had advanced funds to her son to renovate his property and held a promissory note.

The estate trustee opposed the settlement, questioning the legitimacy of the mother's claim.

The court approved the settlement, finding the mother was a legitimate owner and the Attorney General acted reasonably in recognizing her claim, ordering $120,000 paid out of the preserved funds.

The Attorney General of Ontario initiated a forfeiture proceeding under the Civil Remedies Act against property associated with the late Michael Norwood, controlled by 947014 Ontario Inc. The corporation moved for the release of $210,000 from preserved funds for legal expenses and for the conversion of the application to an action.

The court dismissed the request for legal expenses, holding that the Act only permits payment for expenses already incurred, not future retainers, and that disbursements and HST fall under the 15% cap.

The motion to convert the application to an action was deemed premature.

The court also authorized the payment of a judgment to a third-party creditor from the preserved funds.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiff sought damages for the wrongful termination of his commercial tenancy by the defendant landlord, following a Court of Appeal decision remitting the matter for assessment.

The plaintiff, who operated a dry-cleaning business, claimed damages for harassment, loss of business income, loss of equipment, and mental distress.

The court awarded $5,000 in aggravated damages for the unfair treatment, $6,000 for loss of income based on a 60-day notice period, and $5,000 for the value of the disposed equipment.

Claims for mental distress and punitive damages were dismissed.

Total damages of $16,000 were awarded, with no order as to costs.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, accepting the complainant's testimony of non-consensual intercourse and forceful restraint, supported by physical evidence.

The court found the accused not guilty of uttering a death threat, as the alleged statement lacked context and credibility.

The plaintiff initiated an action for defamation and malicious confinement against his sister, the defendant.

He brought a motion for document production from various police and security organizations.

The defendant, noted in default, sought to set aside the default and file a statement of defense, and also requested the court to consider the action vexatious under Rule 2.1.01.

The court struck the plaintiff's statement of claim as frivolous and vexatious, granting leave to amend it within 30 days, failing which the action would be permanently stayed.

The defendant was granted leave to file a statement of defense after the amended claim.

The plaintiff's motion for document production was not entertained until pleadings are closed.

The court declined to apply Rule 2.1.01 at this stage.

No costs were awarded.

The accused was tried on counts of sexual assault and sexual intercourse with his child arising from historical intrafamilial abuse spanning several years.

The court applied the objective sexual-nature analysis to an early touching incident and the W.(D.) framework to the accused's denial evidence, while cautioning itself about the frailties of distant-memory evidence.

Corroborative hospital records relating to a pregnancy termination supported the complainant's account in material respects.

Although the court rejected some isolated portions of the complainant's evidence, it accepted the core narrative and found the Crown had proven both counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, successfully moved to strike the plaintiffs' action as res judicata and an abuse of process.

In this costs endorsement, the plaintiffs argued for an exemption from costs as public interest litigants.

The court rejected this argument, finding the action was primarily intended to prevent regulatory charges from being heard, was substantially similar to previous actions, and therefore constituted an abuse of process not in the public interest.

The court applied the five factors from *St. James Preservation Society* and the criteria from *Incredible Electronics Inc.* to determine that the plaintiffs did not qualify as public interest litigants.

Costs were awarded to Ontario and Canada.

The third party, Fasco Motors Limited, sought costs following its substantial success on a motion to compel the defendant, Venmar Ventilation Inc., to answer refusals from an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved a fire loss allegedly caused by a malfunctioning heat recovery ventilator.

The court awarded the third parties costs on a partial indemnity scale, fixing fees at $5,000 and disbursements at $4,600, inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff software developer sought an interlocutory injunction against a former employee and her company, alleging they breached confidentiality agreements and infringed copyright by developing competing software using the plaintiff's source code.

The court found a serious issue to be tried and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm from the loss of its Canadian market share.

The court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from selling their software to new clients in Canada pending trial, but allowed them to continue servicing existing clients to balance the convenience and maintain the status quo.

The defendants were also ordered to provide a monthly accounting of revenues.

The court-appointed receiver sought approval of an agreement of purchase and sale for two multi-residential properties.

The mortgagor objected to the sale price, and the first mortgagee objected to the sale unless its yield maintenance penalty of $1.7 million was paid from the proceeds.

Applying the Soundair principles, the court approved the sale, finding the receiver's process fair and the price reasonable.

However, the court ordered the $1.7 million held in trust pending a trial of an issue to determine the first mortgagee's entitlement to the yield maintenance penalty.

The third parties brought a motion to compel the defendants to answer questions and provide undertakings refused during the examination for discovery of the defendants' witness.

The underlying action involves a house fire allegedly caused by a heat recovery ventilator manufactured by the defendants, which contained a motor manufactured by the third parties.

The court ordered the defendants to answer the majority of the refused questions, finding them relevant to the adequacy of the defendants' safety upgrade program and their appreciation of the fire risk.

Following a motion for directions in the passing of accounts for an incapable person's estate, the litigation guardian sought costs against a responding party who was found to be a vexatious litigant.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $36,969, payable personally by the responding party, finding his attempts to re-litigate previously decided guardianship issues amounted to an abuse of process.

The defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Attorney General of Canada, moved to strike the plaintiffs' action as an abuse of process and res judicata.

The court found the action was substantially similar to two prior dismissed proceedings and was primarily intended to delay regulatory hunting and fishing prosecutions against the individual plaintiffs.

The court determined that constitutional issues related to the prosecutions should be raised in the Ontario Court of Justice, and other land claims could be pursued in a separate, ongoing action (17-71837).

The motion to strike was granted.

The accused was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against young female adult voice students.

The assaults occurred under the guise of 'healing sessions' and involved significant intimate physical contact, including digital penetration and oral sex, exploiting a position of trust as a teacher and quasi-therapist.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years, while the defence proposed 2 years plus probation.

The court considered aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, the devastating impact on victims, and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's age (73 at sentencing) and lack of criminal record, though his age was given limited weight due to his vigor and the severity of the assaults.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, along with DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

This motion for directions arose during the passing of accounts for an incapable person.

The litigation guardian sought guidance on objections filed by the incapable person's children, Peter and Caroline, who attempted to re-litigate previous guardianship appointments and alleged misconduct.

The court found Peter's objections constituted an abuse of process, struck them, and denied him standing.

Caroline was granted standing but was restricted from re-litigating issues previously decided by final court orders.

The court also expressed concern regarding the property guardian's (BMO Trust Company) non-participation in the motion.

The accused, Nehemiah S. Campbell, was charged on a seven-count indictment arising from a shooting incident in downtown Ottawa.

The Crown alleged the accused was the individual who returned fire with a 9mm handgun after being shot by occupants of a white sedan.

The court found the accused guilty on five counts: reckless discharge of a firearm, possessing a firearm while prohibited, possessing a loaded prohibited firearm without a license, possession of a prohibited firearm, and breach of recognizance.

The court dismissed charges of unlawfully causing bodily harm and using a firearm while committing that offence, finding the innocent bystander was wounded by the initial shooter, not the accused.

The judgment relied heavily on video surveillance, forensic evidence (blood spatter matching the accused), and the recovery of the 9mm handgun with the accused's blood-stained wallet.

The court rejected the defence's theory as speculative, concluding the circumstantial evidence proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.