Clayton J. Conlan

The accused, Rebecca Brown, was sentenced for multiple drug trafficking offences (fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine), firearm possession, flight from police, and breaching various court orders.

The court considered aggravating factors including her extensive criminal history, the serious nature of the offences involving dangerous narcotics and a firearm, and multiple breaches of court orders.

Mitigating factors included her guilty pleas, lengthy history of addiction, and serious diagnosed mental health issues (schizophrenia, severe depression).

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less 772 days pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 1,783 days (approx. 4.88 years).

Ancillary orders included lifetime and 10-year firearms prohibitions, a secondary DNA order, and a 3-year driving prohibition.

The accused, H.S., brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion was 43.14 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found 5 months of defence delay (due to waffling on a s. 276/278 Criminal Code application and preliminary inquiry availability) and 14 months of exceptional circumstances attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting court backlog.

After deductions, the net delay was calculated at 24.14 months, falling below the Jordan ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breach.

The respondent husband, M.D., brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged settlement agreement in a family law proceeding, which the applicant wife, N.C., disputed.

The court examined whether a binding agreement had been reached, specifically focusing on two essential terms: an indemnity clause and a $350,000 credit clause.

The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the question of whether a binding deal existed, concluding that there was no meeting of the minds on all essential terms from the perspective of a reasonable observer.

Consequently, the husband's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of CIBC's motion for partial summary judgment.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs, while the unsuccessful plaintiff requested "costs in the cause." The court determined that partial indemnity costs should follow the event, particularly for partial summary judgment motions, due to the inherent risk undertaken by the moving party.

The court awarded the defendants $26,880.00 in costs, a reduction from their requested amount due to the lack of detailed dockets in their costs outline.

The applicant mother moved for temporary child and spousal support.

The court addressed whether to impute income to the respondent father, who had started his own business after losing his job, and whether the mother was entitled to spousal support.

The court found the father intentionally under-employed and imputed an income of $99,969.50 for child support purposes.

The request for spousal support was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Crown brought two applications in a criminal case involving sexual assault and sexual interference charges against the accused, J.A., concerning his step-daughter.

The applications sought a testimonial aid (CCTV testimony) for the complainant and admission of her audio-video recorded police statement.

The Crown abandoned the portion of the testimonial aid application related to another witness.

The application for admission of the recorded police statement was granted by consent.

However, the application for CCTV testimony for the complainant was dismissed.

The court found that the Crown failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that CCTV would facilitate the complainant's testimony, citing a lack of evidence and failure to consider alternative testimonial aids like privacy screens, despite previous judicial guidance on the matter.

The mother appealed an arbitral award that enforced a shared parenting schedule previously agreed upon in an Amending Separation Agreement.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law by the arbitrator, who had properly considered and rejected the mother's arguments of duress and lack of true agreement.

The court emphasized the significant deference owed to arbitral decisions and characterized the appeal as unmeritorious.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the father.

This sentencing decision addresses an offender's guilty pleas to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a prohibited device while prohibited.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the large quantity of cocaine, the offender being on house arrest bail at the time of the offences, and a prior criminal record for similar narcotics offences.

Mitigating factors included early guilty pleas, the offender's long-standing addiction issues stemming from a difficult childhood and family history of addiction, and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation through program completion and good conduct in custody.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a total sentence of 45 months in custody, concurrent sentences for the two charges, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court also ordered forfeiture of a cell phone but strongly recommended police preserve personal photos for the offender.

The case involved two motions concerning financial disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The respondent wife (B.M.) sought an order compelling the applicant husband (P.M.) to provide answers to undertakings, advisements, and refusals from his examination.

The applicant husband (P.M.) sought unredacted credit card statements from the respondent wife (B.M.).

The court granted B.M.'s motion in part, ordering P.M. to provide various financial disclosures, including paystubs, lawyer's file on share sale, credit card statements, pension plan details, updated financial statement, T1 returns, CIBC customer profile, and holding company financial statements.

The court dismissed P.M.'s motion for unredacted statements, allowing B.M. to redact location information due to serious domestic violence allegations and P.M.'s criminal history, while clarifying that only location data could be redacted.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of D.R. on charges including assault, choking, confinement, and uttering threats against his spouse.

The trial judge had acquitted D.R., finding both the complainant and accused "convincing witnesses" and concluding that the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by admitting inadmissible collateral evidence and bad character evidence against the complainant, and by denying the Crown the opportunity to adduce bad character evidence against the accused.

The appellate court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that while the trial judge made some errors, these errors were not essential to the reasoning and had no material bearing on the acquittals, as the accused's convincing testimony alone was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Fahd Husain Khan, was arraigned on charges of break and enter, attempted murder, and kidnapping.

The court found that the Crown proved the acts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The central issue was whether the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR).

Based on expert psychiatric evidence and the application of section 16(1) of the Criminal Code, the court concluded that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia with psychotic symptoms and delusions, rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

Consequently, the court rendered a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The accused, Loic Aurel Simeu, brought an application under section 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The total delay from the charge date (March 31, 2021) to the conclusion of the trial (December 13, 2023) was 32 months and 14 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court identified 7 days of defence-caused delay.

It also found several exceptional circumstances, including a 2-month and 13-day interruption due to the re-translation of inaccurate complainant statements, 1 day for counsel's illness, and approximately 5 days attributed to a significant underestimation of trial time coupled with chronic technical and interpretation difficulties.

After deducting these periods, the remaining delay was calculated to be 29 months and 19 days, falling below the Jordan ceiling.

The court concluded that, from a holistic "bird's-eye view," the delay was not unreasonable, despite the case taking longer than anticipated, and dismissed the application for a stay.

This decision addresses a defendant's motion for relief concerning undertakings, refusals, and "under-advisements" in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court ruled on a preliminary issue to strike certain evidence filed by the plaintiff, striking an affidavit filed improperly but allowing other materials.

The primary focus was on the disclosure of the plaintiff's mental health records.

The court ordered that the plaintiff could redact identifying third-party information from the records, and that the redacted records be disclosed only to the defendant's counsel, not to the defendant directly, due to a demonstrated serious risk to the plaintiff's mental health.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

The applicant, DAA Holdings Ltd., sought a determination of minimum rent under a lease agreement for years 11-15, arguing the respondent, Teranet Inc., breached its duty to negotiate in good faith.

Teranet contended that since no agreement was reached, an "Inflation Factor" default provision should apply, resulting in a much lower rent increase.

The court found that Teranet failed to negotiate in good faith, effectively stonewalling negotiations and making no reasonable counter-proposals based on fair market rates.

The application was granted, and the minimum rent was set as proposed by DAA (with a slight adjustment conceded by DAA's counsel).

This motion concerned a property dispute where the applicant sought to convert an application into an action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the case involved material facts in dispute, complex issues requiring expert evidence, credibility assessments, and a need for pleadings and discoveries.

The conversion was deemed in the interests of justice, providing the respondent with the opportunity to pursue summary judgment and ensuring a more suitable procedural framework for the complex issues involved.

The court also indicated it would case manage the proceeding with strict deadlines.

The Crown applied to have the offender, Vezio Cardullo, declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention following his guilty pleas to sexual assault causing bodily harm, overcoming resistance by choking, and uttering threats.

The defence conceded the dangerous offender designation but opposed an indeterminate sentence, proposing a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found the offender to be a dangerous offender under all three pathways of the Criminal Code, citing his extensive criminal history, including prior sexual assaults, and the brutal nature of the predicate offences.

However, based on expert evidence indicating the offender's treatability and motivation for change, the court determined that a determinate sentence of 17 years' imprisonment (9.5 years net from judgment date) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking three orders: an affidavit of documents from the individual defendant, an adjournment concerning the corporate defendants, and copies of documents subject to a prior request.

The court denied the first two requests, deeming the affidavit premature and lacking jurisdiction for the adjournment given the corporate defendants' default status.

However, the court granted the request for document copies, emphasizing the importance of common sense and the liberal construction of the Rules of Civil Procedure over strict adherence to Rule 30.04(3) regarding document inspection location.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by the Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA) to strike an application for certiorari and prohibition brought by Gordon Baron and Lifestyles by Barons Inc. (collectively, "Baron").

Baron had been charged under the Conservation Authorities Act.

HRCA sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis, while Baron proposed a significantly lower partial indemnity amount.

The court awarded HRCA $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding Baron's underlying application meritless and noting inappropriate conduct, though not bad faith, on Baron's part.

The accused pleaded guilty to a sexual offence involving a minor.

The court accepted a joint sentencing submission, imposing a period of imprisonment followed by probation and various ancillary orders, including sex offender registration and prohibitions on contact and presence near children.

The decision highlights the application of sentencing principles, balancing aggravating factors such as the breach of trust and significant victim impact, with mitigating factors including the guilty plea and the offender's first-time status.

This trial decision addresses a mother's application to relocate with her child from Ontario to Portugal, along with issues of decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support.

The court denied the relocation request, finding it not in the child's best interests due to the mother's failure to provide proper notice, the lack of a well-defined plan, and concerns regarding the mother's partner's legal issues and financial stability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, while establishing a detailed parenting schedule for the father.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and ongoing support.

The mother's request for a restraining order was denied.