Daley

The applicants sought declarations that the respondent, the mayor of Caledon, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by voting on land development matters in which he allegedly had a pecuniary interest.

The court found no evidence that the respondent had a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matters voted upon, noting that his property was located several kilometers away from the developments and any potential development of his land was decades in the future.

Both applications were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate or hear together two applications seeking the removal of a mayor and a councillor for alleged breaches of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that one of the applications had already been fully argued and was no longer 'pending' as required by Rule 6.01.

Furthermore, the court held that the applications required individualized reviews of separate impugned votes, meaning there were no common material facts that would justify joinder or risk inconsistent judicial findings.

The applicants brought a motion to strike portions of the respondents' affidavits filed in a pending application regarding a right of way dispute and defamation claims.

The applicants argued the impugned paragraphs contained irrelevant, prejudicial, and hearsay evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence was either withdrawn from objection by the applicants or was admissible as it went to the respondents' state of mind, responded directly to issues raised by the applicants, or provided relevant narrative history rather than being offered for the truth of its contents.

The offenders were found guilty of conspiracy to import 112 kg of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The cocaine was hidden in wooden pallets in a sea container shipped from Guyana.

The court found both offenders were principal participants in a sophisticated importation scheme.

Buttazzoni, who had a prior drug conviction in the US and made threats of violence, was sentenced to 17 years.

Ramlall, a first-time offender who received the pallets at his home, was sentenced to 15 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The applicant, a young person charged with murder, sought to quash a subpoena compelling him to testify at the preliminary hearing of his separately charged adult co-accused.

The applicant argued the Crown's predominant purpose was to obtain incriminating evidence against him and force him to reveal his defence.

The court found the Crown established the applicant likely had material evidence to give.

Applying the Branch test, the court concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate the Crown's predominant purpose was improper or that there was a real and substantial risk of prejudice to his fair trial rights, given the availability of derivative use immunity.

The application to quash the subpoena was dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger and found a loaded handgun hidden in a sock in the seat pouch in front of him.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the accused's DNA on the sock.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the firearm, as there was no direct evidence connecting him to the gun and alternative explanations for the DNA transfer could not be excluded.

All charges were dismissed.

The moving defendants, including a receiver manager and a bank, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff condominium corporation's claims for construction deficiencies, breach of warranty, oppression, and conspiracy, as well as various cross-claims.

Applying the 'full appreciation' test from Combined Air, the court found that the voluminous and conflicting evidentiary record precluded making dispositive findings on a summary judgment motion.

The motion was dismissed with respect to the plaintiff and the cross-claiming architect, and the action was directed to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging her daughter fraudulently transferred title of a jointly owned property into her own name and subsequently encumbered it with multiple mortgages.

One of the mortgagees brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it, and the plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment against the mortgagees and default judgment against her daughter.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the 'full appreciation' test could not be met on the incomplete documentary record, and that a trial was necessary to determine whether the plaintiff had an opportunity to avoid the fraud and to allocate the loss among the competing parties under the theory of deferred indefeasibility.

The applicant sought to prohibit the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) from enforcing support arrears after he and his wife consented to an order extinguishing all arrears and withdrew from the FRO.

Prior to the consent order, the applicant made a support payment that was returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF), but the FRO had already disbursed the funds to the wife.

The court dismissed the application, finding that under sections 57 and 58 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, the FRO has an independent statutory right to continue enforcement to recover the NSF amount as reimbursement for monies paid out, regardless of the parties' private agreement to extinguish support arrears.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after a 16-year marriage.

The court determined issues of equalization, child support, spousal support, and access.

The court imputed $14,400 in annual cash income to the respondent from his automotive business, setting his income for child support purposes at $102,729.67.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $173,430.90.

Spousal support of $600 per month was made final due to the applicant's economic disadvantage.

The respondent was granted Saturday access to the children, but overnight access was denied due to safety concerns and the lack of a proper plan.