Clinton Bruce Willson

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment under Rule 49.09 after the defendant failed to comply with the terms of an accepted offer to settle.

The parties had settled the action for $90,000 payable in installments, with a term that default would result in consent to judgment for the outstanding balance plus $10,000 in costs.

The defendant defaulted on the final $30,000 and failed to respond to the motion.

The court granted judgment for the outstanding $30,000 plus $10,000 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment under Rule 49.09 after the defendant defaulted on a $90,000 settlement agreement.

The motion was initially adjourned by an Associate Justice for lack of jurisdiction and directed to proceed in writing before a judge.

The court found that the motion materials had not been properly served on the defendant, as no formal lawyer of record existed.

The motion was adjourned to allow the plaintiff to properly serve the defendant pursuant to Rule 16.01(4).

This sentencing decision addresses three co-accused, James Bolan, Jarrett Jocko, and Gilbert Ryan Wilson, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house.

The victim sustained severe, life-altering injuries from a premeditated and violent vigilante attack.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the extreme violence and premeditation, and mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, pre-sentence custody, and the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns (Duncan factors).

Gladue principles were applied for the Indigenous offenders, Bolan and Jocko.

The court rejected the defence's request for time served, imposing a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment for aggravated assault and 1 year concurrent for unlawful entry, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included DNA orders, lifetime firearms prohibitions (with sustenance hunting exception for Indigenous offenders), and no-contact orders with the victim and a co-accused.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify via CCTV and with the assistance of a support person in an upcoming jury trial for sexual assault.

The complainant testified to severe anxiety and an inability to provide a full account if testifying in person due to the accused's presence.

The court granted the application, finding that the order would facilitate a full and candid account, balancing the accused's right to confrontation with society's interest in truth-seeking and encouraging the reporting of offences.

The offender was sentenced for multiple counts of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation involving three minor children.

The offender, who was a parent to the children, abused his position of trust over a significant period of time.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, balancing the profound harm caused to the victims against the offender's guilty pleas and tragic background.

A global sentence of 4 years imprisonment was imposed, along with mandatory ancillary orders and a 10-year section 161 prohibition order.

The applicants, accused of a home invasion robbery, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (including firearms and disguises) found in the trunk of a vehicle.

The police had stopped the vehicle hours after the robbery without reasonable grounds, detaining the occupants for an extended period without reading them their rights to counsel.

The court found serious breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the seriousness of the breaches and their impact on the applicants' rights outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, resulting in the exclusion of the evidence.

The applicants, charged with offences relating to a home invasion robbery, brought an application to adduce evidence that a third party committed the robbery.

The court found a strong nexus between the third party and the crime, noting police intelligence and surveillance linking the third party to a vehicle similar to the one used in the robbery.

The court held that the proposed evidence was relevant and probative, and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The application was allowed.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit a witness to testify by closed-circuit video from British Columbia.

The application was brought on the eve of trial without prior notice, contrary to the pre-trial endorsement.

The court denied leave to bring the late application, citing trial fairness and the importance of adhering to pre-trial timelines.

In the alternative, the court held that even if leave were granted, the substantive application would be dismissed because the Crown failed to establish that video testimony was appropriate in the circumstances, relying solely on hearsay evidence and cost considerations.

The accused, Jesse Lee Bernier (22) and Ty Roger Oliver-Morin (20), pleaded guilty to invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault of a 15-year-old female complainant.

The victim was highly intoxicated at a party, and the offences involved forced fellatio and unprotected vaginal intercourse.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age and vulnerability, the multiple assailants, and the severe psychological impact on the victim (PTSD, suicidal ideation).

Mitigating factors included the offenders' lack of prior criminal records, their young age, expressions of remorse, early guilty pleas, and time spent under stringent bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but also the principle of restraint for young first offenders and the objective of rehabilitation.

The accused, Nicholas Berto, was found guilty by a jury of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the intentional and aggressive driving towards a crowd, the severe, life-altering injuries to an innocent bystander, and the subsequent flight from the scene to avoid liability.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, positive pre-sentence report, supportive family, and remorse.

The court rejected the defence's arguments regarding cognitive impairment and the weight of bail conditions.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation, the court imposed a total sentence of 24 months imprisonment, a 10-year firearms prohibition, a 2-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a victim fine surcharge.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action, which arose from a real estate transaction and a forfeited deposit, was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to set it down for trial by a deadline established at a status hearing.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, did not move expeditiously to set aside the order, and could not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash their committal to stand trial for first degree murder under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code.

They argued there was no evidence that the victim was killed while being forcibly confined or regarding the role each applicant played in the killing.

They also argued they were denied natural justice because the preliminary inquiry judge relied on post-offence conduct and specific medical evidence without giving them an opportunity to make submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the applicants were permitted to address the evidence and were not denied natural justice.

The court further held that even if there was a breach, the applicants suffered no prejudice because a committal was inevitable based on the pre-offence and post-offence circumstantial evidence, which was sufficient to permit a jury to infer a common intention and that each applicant played a substantial and integral role in the killing.

The accused applied for disclosure of contact information for several civilian witnesses who had been interviewed during a homicide investigation but whom the Crown did not intend to call at the preliminary inquiry.

The defence argued that the information was necessary to conduct its own investigation and to prepare full answer and defence under the principles established in Stinchcombe.

The Crown refused disclosure citing specific safety concerns and evidence of intimidation, gang affiliation, and repeated breaches of non‑communication orders by the accused while in custody.

The court held that while witness contact information is generally relevant and normally disclosed, the Crown had established specific and credible security risks justifying withholding the information in this case.

Instead, the court adopted a structured procedure allowing defence counsel to interview willing witnesses at the courthouse while protecting witness safety and confidentiality.

The defendants brought a motion seeking additional production of documents and an order that this action be tried together with or consecutively to a related proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and sought orders compelling further documentary disclosure and updated information from the defendants.

The court held that, following amendment of the pleading, document production should be assessed in relation to the amended claim and limited to documents relevant to common customers and vendors.

The court ordered ongoing disclosure obligations on the defendants regarding common customers and vendors but declined to order the actions tried together.

An interim award of $35,000 was granted to the defendants as costs thrown away arising from the amendment.

The moving party sought to vary a prior interim order requiring monthly payments of $10,000 to the responding party, requesting a reduction and other financial relief including imputation of income and disclosure orders.

The responding party brought a cross‑motion seeking to strike the moving party’s pleadings for repeated breaches of court orders and to have him found in contempt.

The court found the moving party had failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances and had not provided sufficient financial disclosure to justify a variation.

The court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that the moving party wilfully failed to comply with an order requiring the matrimonial home to be listed for sale and made a finding of contempt.

The variation motion was dismissed, the payments were characterized as child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $350,000, and arrears were fixed and payable from the sale proceeds of the matrimonial home.