Conlan

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, applied for a bail review to vary his release conditions to allow him to work in the music business.

The court found an error of law in the lower court's imposition of the strictest form of release, including full house arrest and electronic monitoring, despite finding the primary ground was not a concern and the Crown's case was only moderately strong.

The court varied the conditions to add a third surety, allow exceptions to the curfew for work in Ontario, and deleted the electronic monitoring requirement.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate and individual defendants for the shortfall owing on a defaulted commercial truck lease.

The individual defendant argued the defence of non est factum, claiming he was duped into signing the lease by a third party and did not understand English.

The court rejected this defence, finding the defendant was careless in signing the document without seeking translation or advice.

The court also found the plaintiff acted in a commercially reasonable manner when selling the repossessed truck.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.

The accused, charged with sexually assaulting and sexually interfering with their child, brought an application under section 278.93(1) of the Criminal Code to admit private records at trial.

The records consisted of notes from a child welfare agency and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which the accused argued were relevant because the child did not disclose the alleged abuse during those interviews.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the records were relevant, their limited probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The court noted that admitting the records would engage problematic myths and stereotypes about child disclosure and would negatively impact the complainant's privacy and dignity.

Following a final settlement on a Motion to Change, the applicant sought full indemnity costs of $175,000, while the self-represented respondent argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, having secured equal parenting time, which was the most important issue.

The court rejected the applicant's claim for full indemnity costs as there was no bad faith, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $100,000, noting the respondent's uncooperative behaviour and meritless adjournment application.

The accused was tried for two home invasions in Oakville and Scarborough.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily cell phone records, text messages, and videos found on the accused's phone upon arrest.

The court admitted similar fact evidence across the counts, finding striking similarities between the two incidents.

The court also admitted incoming text messages from an unindicted co-conspirator under the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the accused guilty as a co-principal on all counts, concluding he conspired to commit the robberies, assembled the team, and was present at the scenes.

The accused was tried for sexual assault against his 18-year-old niece.

The Crown alleged the accused touched the complainant's breast and digitally penetrated her vagina without consent while she was drowsy from medication.

The court admitted the accused's out-of-court statements to a friend and expert psychiatric evidence called by the defence.

The court found that the accused touched the complainant's breast before asking if she was uncomfortable, and that any subsequent consent was vitiated by his abuse of a position of trust.

The court also accepted the complainant's evidence that the accused digitally penetrated her while she was asleep.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of assaulting an unrelated child and attempting to abduct his own child, whom he had not seen in over a year.

The offender, who suffers from mental illness and represented himself at trial, mistakenly grabbed the unrelated child before grabbing and pulling his own child towards a car.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay two other findings of guilt, and sentenced the offender to 12 months in custody (net 4 months after pre-sentence credit) followed by three years of probation.

At a case management hearing in a guardianship dispute, the court ordered the waiver of solicitor-client privilege for three lawyers who prepared Powers of Attorney for the incapable person, Paul Tanti, to allow them to testify at the upcoming hearing.

The court also directed that former Section 3 counsel for Paul Tanti transition to the role of amicus curiae, given her intimate knowledge of the complex and highly acrimonious proceeding, and set out the order of presentation and permitted evidence for the upcoming hearing.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and several firearms offences after shooting his long-term domestic partner in the face with a homemade firearm.

The court considered the offender's prior record for domestic violence and the devastating, permanent injuries suffered by the victim as aggravating factors, while the late guilty pleas and pandemic-related pre-sentence custody were mitigating.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years' imprisonment, reduced to 30 months net after crediting 4 years for pre-sentence custody.

At the commencement of a family law trial, the self-represented respondent mother requested an adjournment to consult with counsel, grieve the recent passing of her father, and attend a medical appointment.

The applicant father opposed the request.

The court denied the adjournment, noting the matter was marked peremptory, had been previously postponed, and the mother had already been given time to grieve.

The court accommodated the medical appointment by adjusting the trial schedule, concluding that an adjournment was not in the interests of justice or the child's best interests.

The parties separated after a rocky marriage.

The husband, who was recently diagnosed with advanced cancer, sought repayment of loans he advanced to the wife's daycare business, as well as child support adjustments and chattels.

The wife sought a divorce, sole decision-making responsibility, and spousal support.

The court granted the divorce and sole decision-making responsibility to the wife.

Spousal support was denied based on a valid marriage contract.

The court imputed the husband's income at $50,000 for child support purposes due to his illness.

The court found the advances to the wife's business were loans, but most were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period, ordering the wife to repay only $40,346 which she had acknowledged to her accountant.

The respondent husband brought an interim motion to stay or reduce his $13,000 monthly spousal support obligation and stay enforcement of arrears pending the hearing of his motion to change.

The husband argued his income had significantly decreased due to selling his business following a cancer diagnosis.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the husband established a prima facie material change in circumstances, he failed to demonstrate hardship as he could pay support from his investments, and he came to court with unclean hands due to his deliberate prior non-compliance with the support order.

The father sought costs following a parenting review hearing that resulted in the suspension of the mother's contact with the child, as well as costs for an unsuccessful motion brought by the mother.

The court awarded the father full indemnity costs for the parenting review hearing due to the mother's conduct, and partial indemnity costs for the unsuccessful motion.

The mother was ordered to pay total costs of $14,627.85.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 15-year-old complainant.

The accused raised the defences of mistake of age and consent.

The court applied the three-step framework from Carbone to assess the mistake of age defence, finding that the accused took virtually no steps to ascertain the complainant's age, thereby negating the defence.

The court also found that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity and that there was no air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of the applicants' application regarding legal non-conforming use of their property and the dismissal of the respondent's contempt motion.

The respondent sought over $230,000 in costs, while the applicants sought costs for the contempt motion.

The court declined to award costs to either party for the contempt motion.

For the application, the court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs fixed at $150,000, finding the requested amount too high but acknowledging the respondent's complete success.

The applicant mother brought a motion to lift the suspension of her in-person parenting time and to order 50-50 parenting time.

The court had previously suspended her parenting time due to chronic, unsubstantiated allegations of abuse against the respondent father.

Shortly after her first supervised electronic visit, the mother again called the police on the father based on a two-word text message from the child, resulting in another unfounded investigation.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and ordered a complete suspension of all contact between the mother and the child for three months.

Following a decision to set aside a guardianship order, the parties made written submissions on costs.

Although the respondent was successful in setting aside the order, the court declined to award her costs due to her unreasonable conduct, which included prolonging the hearing and ignoring the spirit of the judgment.

The applicant was also denied costs as he was unsuccessful and had relied on inaccurate information.

The court ordered no costs to either party.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including assault and assault with a weapon against his pregnant wife, and received a suspended sentence.

Facing certain deportation, he applied to extend the time to appeal his convictions and sentence, arguing his pleas were procedurally flawed and uninformed regarding immigration consequences, and alternatively sought a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the procedural irregularity caused no prejudice, the appellant was fully informed of the immigration consequences before pleading guilty, and a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the serious domestic violence involved.

The accused, charged with home invasion robberies, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 8 and s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from his cellular telephone.

The police had seized the phone upon arrest and extracted its raw data without a warrant, later obtaining a search warrant to review the data.

The court found that the warrantless extraction of raw data violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights, rejecting the Crown's argument that it was authorized under s. 489(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests was minimal and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits favoured admission.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party, the wife of the incapable person, brought a motion to set aside a 2019 ex parte Guardianship Order that appointed the incapable person's son as his sole guardian of property and person.

The court found that the original order was intended to be temporary and was granted based on allegations of missing funds and abandonment that were later admitted to be untrue.

The court set aside the Guardianship Order on grounds of procedural fairness and under Rule 59.06(2)(a) based on facts discovered after it was made.

However, the court temporarily stayed the setting aside of the order for 90 days to prevent a vacuum in the incapable person's care while the parties determine the validity of competing powers of attorney.