Clark Peddle

The offender, G.T., was found guilty of sexual assault.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing.

The Crown sought 18-24 months incarceration, while the defence proposed a conditional discharge or a 3-6 month conditional sentence.

The court rejected a conditional discharge due to the offender's lack of genuine remorse and insight.

Ultimately, the court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence followed by an 18-month probation order, citing mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, and significant procedural delays, and the constitutional ruling that allowed for conditional sentences for sexual assault.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering payment of over $4.2 million arising from breach of repair and maintenance obligations under a commercial lease for hotel and restaurant premises.

They argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the lease as imposing an enhanced repair standard and that there was insufficient evidence establishing the condition of the premises at the start of the lease.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, holding that the lease language and commercial context supported the trial judge’s interpretation.

The court further held that evidence including contractual representations, inspection reports, and witness testimony provided a sufficient basis to compare the condition of the premises over time.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs, having previously succeeded in a damages claim for breach of a commercial lease, sought pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the contractual lease rate of 18% per annum and costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for the lower statutory interest rate, citing historical low market rates and potential windfall for the plaintiffs.

The court, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co.*, upheld the contractual interest rate, finding no special circumstances to override the parties' agreement.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiffs as requested, fixed at $106,581, including disbursements and tax, based on their formal offer to settle.

The plaintiffs purchased a commercial property containing a hotel and restaurant and leased it back to the defendants for five years.

Upon the lease's expiry, the plaintiffs took possession and discovered significant disrepair, including moisture damage.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of the lease's repair and maintenance obligations.

The court found that the defendants failed to maintain the premises to the standard of a 'careful owner' and that the deterioration exceeded reasonable wear and tear.

The plaintiffs were awarded $1,734,107 in damages for remediation costs.

The court considered a motion by a court‑appointed receiver seeking approval of an agreement of purchase and sale for property owned by the respondent corporation.

The first mortgagee and the second mortgagee supported the proposed sale despite a projected shortfall on the second mortgage.

A shareholder objected, arguing the property should first be marketed through MLS and pointing to higher appraisals.

The court accepted the receiver’s evidence regarding market uncertainties, marketing timelines, and financial realities, including the absence of any realistic economic benefit to the objecting shareholder.

The motion approving the sale was granted.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants on personal guarantees executed in connection with commercial credit facilities exceeding $3.9 million.

The defendants argued various defences including non est factum, failure to realize on security before enforcing the guarantees, unconscionability, innocent misrepresentation, and lack of independent legal advice.

The court exercised its powers under Rule 20 to weigh evidence and assess credibility and found the primary defence of non est factum unsupported, concluding the defendant guarantor was willfully blind in signing documents without inquiry.

The court also rejected arguments of agency, misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence.

The guarantees were found valid and enforceable and summary judgment was granted to the lender.