David Meirovici

The accused were involved in a large-scale marijuana trafficking operation.

Following guilty findings based on Agreed Statements of Fact, the court proceeded to sentencing.

The primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation were emphasized, particularly given the commercial nature and significant profits involved.

The court rejected arguments to delay sentencing based on anticipated changes to marijuana laws, affirming the rule of law.

State misconduct in the investigation, while acknowledged, was deemed to have negligible impact on sentencing.

Credit was given for onerous bail conditions and the efficient conduct of the trial through Agreed Statements of Fact.

Conditional sentences were deemed inappropriate, with penitentiary sentences warranted for all accused.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for intrusion upon seclusion.

The appellant, a pilot, accessed the respondent's flight schedule via an Air Canada website and disseminated it to the respondent's estranged wife for use in divorce proceedings.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding that the tort of intrusion upon seclusion was made out, emphasizing that accessing information for non-work related purposes and disseminating it without consent constituted an intentional invasion of privacy, which a reasonable person would find highly offensive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, shareholders in several real estate corporations, sought leave to commence a derivative action and amended their statement of claim to add new causes of action following the discovery of a multi-million dollar fraud by a co-investor.

The defendants moved to strike the new claims and opposed the derivative action.

The court held that the motion for leave to commence a derivative action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in CIBC v. Green regarding the unavailability of nunc pro tunc orders to circumvent expired limitation periods.

The court also struck the new claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence as statute-barred, but allowed the unjust enrichment and oppression claims to proceed.

A dispute arose after the defendant purchased a winning $2 million scratch lottery ticket while in a romantic relationship with the plaintiff and living with her parents.

The plaintiff claimed the parties had agreed to share lottery winnings, while the parents argued they owned the winnings because the ticket was purchased using their company's debit card.

The court held that the evidence did not establish any express or implied agreement between the romantic partners to share the winnings and rejected claims of constructive trust or unjust enrichment.

The court further found that the parents had implicitly permitted the debit card use and had no entitlement to the proceeds.

The winnings belonged solely to the defendant, subject only to a small damages award relating to a lost deposit caused by a freezing order obtained by the plaintiff.

The defendants, residents of California, brought a motion to stay the proceeding on the grounds that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not a convenient forum.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated assets while employed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argued that because they moved their corporate operations from Quebec to Ontario after the alleged wrongs, Ontario acquired jurisdiction.

The court applied the Van Breda framework and held that a plaintiff cannot import jurisdiction by moving to a new province after the fact.

The motion was granted and the proceeding was stayed.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the total delay of 17.5 months, when reduced to account for neutral intake and institutional delay, resulted in 12.5 months of attributable delay—exceeding the Morin guidelines by 2.5 months.

The Crown was responsible for 3.5 months of unreasonable delay in providing essential disclosure, particularly the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant.

The court found that the accused suffered both inherent prejudice and real prejudice, including disruption to family court proceedings regarding custody and access to his children.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.