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 appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $3,117.38 for defective mechanical work.

The trial judge had preferred the evidence of the respondent's expert, who testified that a timing belt was incorrectly installed, causing engine damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings.

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 appellants appealed a motion judge's order granting summary judgment against them in a debt collection matter.

The motion judge had set aside an initial summary judgment and granted a second one after the appellants failed to file responding materials and were denied a further adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment or in the calculation of the amounts owing.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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 plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against a corporate director under a personal guarantee limited to $125,000 plus interest securing the debts of the corporation.

The defendant acknowledged the signature on the guarantee but argued the bank failed to discharge its duty to draw attention to onerous provisions, relying on Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning.

The court held the guarantee was clear, continuing, and applied to all accounts, and found the defendant knowingly executed it as the directing mind of the corporation to obtain financing.

The court rejected the argument that the bank had a positive duty to ensure understanding of the guarantee's terms.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the bank for the outstanding balance plus interest.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants notified the respondent that they were withdrawing their appeal and subsequently failed to appear in court.

The Court of Appeal noted the withdrawal in its endorsement.

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.

A debtor company operating a glazing and glass manufacturing business brought a motion under s. 50.6 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking approval for debtor‑in‑possession (DIP) financing and an interim financing charge during notice of intention proceedings.

The secured creditor opposed the proposed financing, arguing that the company was not viable and that the charge would prejudice its security position.

The court considered the statutory factors under s. 50.6, including the likelihood of a viable proposal, the trustee’s report, the nature of the debtor’s assets, and potential prejudice to creditors.

Finding that the business would cease operations without interim funding and that the prejudice to the secured creditor was minimal relative to the benefits of continued operations, the court approved a first tranche of DIP financing and granted a corresponding interim financing charge.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent had loaned her a significant amount of money.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in accepting parts of the respondent's evidence while rejecting others, reversed the burden of proof, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were reasonable, the burden of proof was correctly applied, and the reasons were adequate.

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The moving party, 2205305 Ontario Inc., was unsuccessful on an urgent motion to stay an order approving a receiver's sale of properties.

The respondents sought costs against the moving party's parent corporation, Romspen Investment Corporation, arguing it was the real moving party and the moving party was a shell corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for costs against the non-party, finding no fraud or abuse of process to justify lifting the corporate veil, and fixed costs against the moving party on a partial indemnity scale.