David MacKenzie

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it did not have a valid non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The Deputy Judge found that the invoice signed by the car owner was an acknowledgment of work done, not an acknowledgment of indebtedness as required by s. 7(5) of the Act.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in this factual finding and dismissed the appeal.

On a bail application under s. 522 of the Criminal Code by an accused charged with second degree murder, the court held that detention was not justified on the secondary or tertiary grounds under s. 515(10).

The court gave significant weight to the accused's Indigenous background and the systemic and personal circumstances recognized by Gladue, while also finding that an unusually stringent release plan with multiple sureties, house arrest, abstinence conditions, and culturally appropriate supports adequately protected public safety.

The court further rejected the Crown's position that s. 515(2)(e) required a cash deposit because the accused was ordinarily resident in Ontario and within 200 kilometres of the place of custody.

Judicial interim release was granted on strict terms.

The young person, an aboriginal youth, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing his cousin during an altercation.

The court considered the chaotic social conditions of his remote community, his history of solvent abuse, and Gladue factors.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for pre-trial custody.

The young person was sentenced to two years, comprising six months of pre-trial custody credit, three months in secure custody, and 15 months of conditional supervision in the community with conditions to attend school and address substance abuse and anger issues.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered against their residential property.

The respondents had obtained the certificate in the context of an oppression remedy claim involving a corporate dispute.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and discharged the certificate, finding that the motions judge erred in law by applying a broad equitable discretion instead of determining whether there was a reasonable claim to an interest in land.

The court concluded that the pleadings did not demonstrate a reasonable claim to an interest in the land, as the claims were for damages and corporate remedies, not for an interest in the property itself.

The Crown appealed a sentencing judge's decision to suspend the respondent's conditional sentence order and direct her to serve 30 days in custody intermittently on weekends following three admitted breaches.

The Crown argued that the Criminal Code does not permit intermittent sentences for conditional sentence breaches.

Applying the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Ng, the Superior Court agreed that the sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to impose an intermittent sentence.

The appeal was allowed, but because the respondent had already served the 30 days, the sentence was varied to time served plus probation.