David E. Harris

The applicant sought a declaration that $525,000 provided to his son and daughter-in-law in 2011 to purchase a home was a loan to be held in constructive or resulting trust, rather than a gift.

The respondents contended the money was a gift and that the application was time-barred.

The court found the money was clearly a gift based on the signed gift letter, the applicant's admission of never requesting repayment, his payment of rent to the respondents, and his knowledge that he was not on title.

The court also found the application statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as the claim accrued in 2011 and the application was brought in 2024.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

The appellant was convicted based primarily on the testimony of a developmentally delayed complainant who functioned cognitively at the level of an 8-9 year old.

The complainant alleged multiple assaults and sexual assaults occurring during his employment with the appellant in a landscaping and snow plowing business between August 2015 and October 2018.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based largely on credibility findings regarding the complainant.

The appellate court identified significant errors in the trial judge's treatment of inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including a legal error regarding hearsay classification and a misapprehension of evidence regarding statements to a third-party observer.

The court found these errors, combined with insufficient reasons addressing major inconsistencies, constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

The appellant sought to withdraw guilty pleas to one count of threatening and two counts of failing to comply with bail, alleging that the evidence was fabricated, that he was set up, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and that he was coerced into pleading guilty due to threats and abuse by inmates at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the guilty pleas were voluntary and unequivocal, that the appellant had ample opportunity to voice complaints during the judicial proceedings but did not, and that the appellant's account was neither plausible nor credible.

The court found no merit to the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found Jamar Bailey guilty of robbery, pointing a firearm, and being in a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm, in connection with a planned online transaction for PlayStation 5s and an X-Box.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence linking Bailey to the Snapchat handle “cookiestoronto,” the presence of a black Mazda 3, and the recent possession of a PlayStation 5.

The court rejected the defence alibi as unreliable and found the eyewitness identification evidence to be of no value.

The court also addressed Charter issues regarding police access to digital evidence, ultimately finding no prejudice.

Bailey was acquitted on charges of possession of a gun without a licence and reckless discharge.

The applicant, Melissa Merritt, challenged the constitutionality of the absence of an appeal route following the dismissal of a directed verdict application and a subsequent mistrial.

She argued that section 7 of the Charter requires an appeal to the Court of Appeal in these circumstances and attacked sections 674 and 675 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the argument, holding that Parliament is entitled to restrict appeals to those provided by statute and that interlocutory appeals are not constitutionally required.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant later pled guilty to manslaughter.

The court sentenced Nicola Owen, convicted of importing almost 8 kilograms of heroin into Canada, to 9 years’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge considered the low purity of the heroin (18%), Owen’s positive presentence report, lack of criminal record, health issues, and other mitigating factors.

The court found that the low purity and unique circumstances justified a sentence below the usual 12–17 year range for such offences.

The decision discusses the relevance of drug purity to sentencing and the importance of proportionality under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, Cassandra Gordon, was sentenced after being found guilty by a jury of importing cocaine from Aruba into Canada.

The offence involved a significant aggravating factor, as the defendant used her twelve-year-old son to help carry the drugs.

The court considered the defendant's highly vulnerable background, which was detailed in an enhanced pre-sentence report and included experiences of childhood sexual abuse, poverty, and systemic anti-Black racism.

Balancing the need for deterrence and denunciation with the principle of rehabilitation, the sentencing judge departed from the standard sentencing range and imposed a sentence of three and a half years of incarceration.

The court sentenced Nathaniel Dillon for assault, sexual assault, and threatening, all committed against his then-girlfriend, ZK, on June 25, 2018.

The court found the complainant credible, with physical evidence corroborating her account.

The court considered Dillon’s significant mental health issues, including a history of psychosis and schizophrenia, as a mitigating factor, but not a major one.

The sentence imposed was three years’ imprisonment for sexual assault, with concurrent sentences for assault and threatening, and a recommendation for treatment in a specialized correctional facility.

The court also imposed ancillary orders, including probation, DNA, and weapons prohibitions.

An applicant sought a declaration that properties and bank accounts held jointly with a family member were subject to a resulting trust, not a gift.

This application was brought to protect assets from a judgment creditor, which had obtained a fraud judgment against the family member.

The court addressed two preliminary issues: whether the transfer was a gift or created a resulting trust (requiring a trial), and whether the family member's registration on title necessarily gave them a beneficial interest enforceable by the creditor.

The court dismissed the creditor's argument that land titles registration was conclusive for third-party creditors, distinguishing it from conveyancing cases involving bona fide purchasers.

The court found that the indefeasibility principle of the Land Titles system does not apply to third-party creditors in this context, and therefore, a trial is necessary to determine the true beneficial ownership.

D.S. was sentenced for sexual assault against his stepdaughter, M.M., committed between 2013 and 2014 when she was 19.

The court considered prior uncharged sexual assaults in Alberta (from age 6 to 15) as aggravating factors, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The sentencing emphasized the extreme frequency and repetition of the assaults, the profound breach of trust by the stepfather, and the catastrophic psychological and emotional impact on the victim, including Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, eating disorders, and agoraphobia.

Despite the defence's recommendation of 5-7 years, the court imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years' incarceration, citing the extraordinary gravity of the offence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the offender's high moral culpability, emphasizing denunciation.

Ancillary orders for DNA databank, SOIRA, and non-communication were also made.

The applicant, charged with serious offences, sought to exclude a statement made to police while incarcerated, arguing violations of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and the common law voluntariness rule.

The court found no s. 10(b) violation as there was no change in jeopardy, but determined the statement was involuntary due to police trickery.

The police deliberately failed to give the primary caution, conducted the interview in English despite knowing the applicant's primary language was Punjabi, and exploited his vulnerability by interviewing him in jail after two weeks of incarceration.

The court disbelieved the officers' testimony that they "forgot" to give the caution.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.

The three accused, Anand Nath, Suliman Raza, and Naqash Abbasi, were found guilty of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a firearm following a shooting at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the offense constituted a terrorism offense, finding that while the motive clause (political, religious, or ideological purpose) was met, the intention clause (to intimidate the public) was not.

The court emphasized the aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the crimes, the group plan, the gratuitous violence against bystanders, and the profound impact on victims.

The judge imposed concurrent life sentences for all counts for each offender, along with ancillary orders.

Courtney Dennis was found guilty of importing four kilograms of high-purity cocaine and resisting arrest.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence or, alternatively, six years.

The court found Dennis to be a principal in the importation scheme, not merely a courier, and that he threatened the couriers.

The judge considered the seriousness of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal history (including prior drug trafficking and firearm convictions), and the significant mitigation due to four years of restrictive house arrest bail.

The court imposed a total sentence of 11 years: 10.5 years for importation and 6 months consecutive for resisting arrest, along with ancillary orders.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned corporation, brought an oppression application against his two sisters, the other shareholders.

The parties were deadlocked over the sale of the corporation's main assets, two commercial properties.

On a short motion prior to the hearing of the main oppression application, the applicant sought an order for an appraisal of the properties.

The respondents opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction prior to an oppression finding.

The court ordered the corporation to fund an appraisal, finding it could help break the logjam between the siblings and shed light on the value of the properties.

The respondent, who was in significant arrears of child support, brought a motion requesting the suspension of his support obligations for the summer months and a halt to enforcement actions.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's poor history of compliance, substantial arrears (nearly $100,000), and previous judicial findings of a lack of credibility and attempts to mislead the court.

The court also declined to order the applicant to provide a travel itinerary or passport/health card copies for the children, leaving it to her discretion.

The plaintiffs, borrowers in a mortgage transaction, sued their own lawyers and the lender's lawyer.

The lender's lawyer brought a motion to strike the claim against her under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lender's lawyer owed no duty of care to the borrowers and that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against her.

The claim was struck without leave to amend, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party.

The plaintiff, Sayed Hoq, brought a motion to correct the names of "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" defendants to Lakhwant Singh and CWH Distribution Services Inc. o/a CW Henderson Distribution, respectively, in a multi-vehicle automobile accident claim.

The motion was brought under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for correction of incorrectly named parties if there is no non-compensable prejudice.

The court applied the "litigation finger" test, finding the original pleading sufficiently particular for the proposed defendants to know they were the intended targets.

Despite a six-year delay, the court found no non-compensable prejudice, dismissing arguments regarding lost records as speculative and not prejudicial to the defendants.

The motion to correct names was granted.

The defendant, Tranh To Nguyen, was charged with the importation of 11 kilograms of heroin into Canada, found in a checked suitcase upon arrival at Toronto Pearson Airport.

The central issue was whether the defendant had knowledge and control of the drugs.

The defendant testified, denying knowledge and claiming the suitcase was a gift for a banker from a business associate in Johannesburg.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony, finding his account of the business trip and the suitcase implausible and his statements to border officers untruthful.

Based on the cumulative circumstances and the high value of the drugs, the court inferred full knowledge and control, leading to a finding of guilt.

A defendant was charged with sexual assault against a complainant, his stepdaughter, occurring in Brampton between 2013 and 2014.

The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, corroborated by her mother's evidence of the defendant's prior admission of sexual assault against the complainant in another jurisdiction (uncharged offences), admitted as similar fact evidence.

The defence challenged the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and her mother, citing the complainant's history of lying, recantations, mental health issues, and amicable electronic communications with the defendant.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible despite its flaws, accepting explanations for inconsistencies and her complex relationship with the defendant.

The court found the mother's testimony regarding the defendant's admission after a suicide attempt to be convincing and confirmed by the mother's later physical confrontation with the defendant.

The similar fact evidence from the other jurisdiction was deemed highly probative.

The court rejected the defendant's denials and found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay a sexual abuse prosecution due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay slightly exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown argued that the defence's inability to accept short-notice earlier trial dates should be attributed as defence delay.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the defence's unavailability on short notice did not constitute defence delay.

In the alternative, the court found that even if the delay fell just under the ceiling, it was markedly excessive due to significant disclosure delays and chronic institutional delays in the jurisdiction.