Clayton J. Conlan

The accused pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after pouring gasoline inside his home during a domestic altercation, causing a fire that destroyed the house and killed two pets.

The Crown sought a net sentence of 12 months in jail plus two years of probation, while the defence sought a net sentence of 3 to 6 months plus 18 months of probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to an effective term of three years' imprisonment (12 months net after 24 months of pre-sentence custody credit), followed by two years of probation and a restitution order of $92,153.12.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after pouring gasoline inside his home during a domestic dispute, causing a fire that destroyed the house and killed two pets.

The Crown sought a net sentence of 12 months in jail (effectively 3 years minus 24 months pre-sentence custody credit) plus 2 years probation, while the defence sought a net sentence of 3 to 6 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing the Crown's requested sentence of 12 months further custody, 2 years probation, and a restitution order of over $92,000 to the insurer.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, careless storage of ammunition, and possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The offender was found with 21 grams of cocaine, cutting agent, and ammunition during a traffic stop.

The court considered the offender's related criminal record and the guilty pleas.

The court sentenced the offender to 90 days in custody in addition to 583 days of pre-sentence credit, declining to impose probation.

The accused brought a pretrial Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) following a traffic stop that led to the discovery of a prohibited weapon and a large quantity of narcotics.

The court rejected the accused's version of events, preferring the testimony of the police officers.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the brief delay in informing the accused of the reason for the stop was justified, the detention and frisk-search were necessary for officer safety, and the vehicle search was a lawful search incidental to arrest.

The application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) was dismissed.

The offender was convicted after trial of trafficking fentanyl and pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and two counts of unauthorized possession of firearms.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years.

The court found exceptional circumstances, including the offender's severe health issues, rehabilitation efforts, and the parity principle, given that the co-adjudicator received a significantly lighter sentence.

The court imposed a reformatory sentence of 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after striking the victim in the face with a beer glass during an altercation at a bar.

The victim, who was highly intoxicated, had aggressively lunged at and pushed the accused.

The accused reacted instinctively by striking the victim once while holding the glass.

The court found that the accused acted in self-defence, as he reasonably believed force was being used against him, acted to protect himself, and his response was proportional given the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference after having sexual intercourse with the 14-year-old daughter of his bail surety, resulting in her pregnancy.

The court considered the offender's Gladue factors, his difficult upbringing, and his guilty plea as mitigating factors, weighed against the severe breach of trust and the victim's young age.

The court sentenced the offender to 3.5 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, resulting in a net sentence of 31.5 months in a federal penitentiary, along with ancillary orders.

Following a trial regarding failed real estate transactions where the plaintiff achieved mixed success, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $55,000, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court awarded the plaintiff discounted partial indemnity costs of $25,000, factoring in the mixed success at trial and the defendant's unreasonable conduct as a landlord.

The accused killed the victim while suffering from a severe mental disorder.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission, supported by two comprehensive forensic psychiatric reports, that the accused was incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions due to psychosis and delusions.

The court accepted the joint submission, rendered a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and referred the disposition to the Ontario Review Board.

The accused, Cory Greavette and Douglas Flett, were jointly tried on charges including robbery, possession of property obtained by crime, uttering threats (Greavette only), and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose (Greavette only).

The complainant's testimony was found to be unreliable and incredible due to memory issues, inconsistencies, admitted dishonesty, and lack of common sense.

Corroborative evidence was deemed insufficient to overcome these frailties.

The court found both accused not guilty on all counts, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Freskela Malual, was charged with common assault, mischief, aggravated assault, and breach of probation arising from an altercation with her live-in partner, Gerald Annis.

The court found Annis's testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies.

The Crown conceded an acquittal on the mischief charge due to shared property ownership.

The court acquitted Malual on the common assault charge due to insufficient evidence regarding the incident outside the bar.

For aggravated assault and breach of probation (possession of a knife), the court found reasonable doubt regarding intent and self-defence, concluding that the injuries could have been accidental or in self-defence against Annis's aggression.

Malual was acquitted on all counts.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a four-day trial where Kim Pearson's claim for $155,629.92 was largely successful, resulting in a principal balance of $50,989.17, while Renuka Bhansingh's claim was dismissed.

The court found Kim Pearson to be the more successful party and presumptively entitled to costs.

Considering Rule 57 factors, the court reduced the costs sought by Kim Pearson from $59,330.68 to $50,000.00, accounting for some divided success on minor issues and the limited utility of certain expert spreadsheets.

The respondent, John Corcoran, was ordered to pay $50,000.00 in costs to Kim Pearson.

The plaintiffs (Moles) and defendant (Manwell) brought cross-motions regarding the admissibility and number of expert witnesses in a medical negligence case.

The Moles sought to restrict Manwell to one expert, while Manwell sought to preclude the Moles' expert (Schatzker) from testifying on a novel surgical technique or, alternatively, to allow all three of his experts to testify if Schatzker's evidence was admitted.

The court found Schatzker's novel evidence on the modified surgical technique to have sufficient threshold reliability for admission.

Consequently, the Moles' motion to restrict Manwell's experts was dismissed, and Manwell was permitted to call all three of his proposed expert witnesses.

The accused, C.L., was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, P.J., became severely intoxicated and unconscious at a party hosted by C.L. She testified to blacking out and having fragmented memories of sexual activity with C.L., to which she did not consent.

C.L. claimed P.J. consented and participated.

The court found P.J. was incapable of consenting due to extreme intoxication and unconsciousness, and that C.L. was reckless and wilfully blind to her lack of consent.

C.L. was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused, Leroy David Dirckx, was charged with producing cannabis marihuana.

The Crown's case relied on an Agreed Statement of Fact and photographs, while the accused testified, denying involvement.

The court considered whether the accused produced the substance through "cultivating" or "harvesting." The court rejected the Crown's "harvesting" argument based on the accused's admission of cutting down unhealthy plants for medicinal salvage, distinguishing it from large-scale harvesting for drying.

However, based on circumstantial evidence including proximity to grow sites, prior indoor cultivation, financial motive (high hydro costs), and photographic evidence of active involvement with plants and tools, the court found the accused guilty of cultivating or helping to cultivate the outdoor marihuana plants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's testimony was deemed illogical and contradictory.

Leroy Dirckx was found guilty of production of cannabis marihuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after a non-jury trial.

The grow sites were located on a third party's property, but the production was for personal medicinal use, not trafficking.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 60-90 days, while the Defence requested a fine of $3000-$5000.

Considering the principles of sentencing, particularly parity with a co-accused who received a Conditional Sentence Order, and the fact that a Conditional Sentence Order was not available to Dirckx, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, a secondary DNA order, and a victim fine surcharge.

The applicant, Zedekiah McAnuff, brought a pretrial application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The application arose from a RIDE stop where the co-accused driver was arrested for impaired driving, and McAnuff was subsequently arrested for public intoxication, leading to a search of his vehicle and the discovery of drugs, cash, and ammunition.

The court found no arbitrary detention, no arrest without reasonable and probable grounds for public intoxication, and no violation of the right to counsel or unreasonable search.

The application was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

K.R. was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young person, M.B. The trial focused on whether the alleged events occurred.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the child complainant, M.B., and the defence witnesses, K.R. and his wife, B.R. The judge found M.B.'s testimony to be rehearsed, inconsistent with other evidence, and illogical regarding timing and the presence of B.R. While not necessarily believing the accused's denials, the judge found B.R.'s testimony credible and compelling, particularly regarding the impossibility of the alleged incidents occurring unnoticed.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on both counts.

Sentencing decision following convictions for multiple historical sexual offences against a child relative committed over three distinct incidents.

The court treated denunciation, general deterrence, and separation from society as the paramount sentencing objectives, while considering the offender's Gladue factors and Aboriginal background.

The offences involved repeated sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, oral sex, digital anal penetration, and anal rape of a child between six and ten years old, coupled with a breach of trust by an adult family member.

The court held that the gravity of the offences warranted a penitentiary sentence notwithstanding the offender's personal and community supports, and imposed a global sentence of eight years plus ancillary orders.

The plaintiff builder sued the defendants for unpaid amounts related to the construction of their home, including authorized changes and extras.

The defendants disputed the costs, alleged deficiencies, and argued the contract was illegal due to the builder's non-registration with Tarion.

The court found the plaintiff proved its claim for the changes and extras, concluding that the defendants received a good deal.

The court rejected the argument that the contract was void due to Tarion non-registration, noting the parties' equal sophistication and deliberate choice to proceed outside the legislation, and affirmed that the claim would succeed on a quantum meruit basis regardless.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff for a principal amount of $70,065.82, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate, denying the plaintiff's claimed 2% per month interest.