David M. Goodman

The applicant, Mr. Su, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a consent order that dismissed his property claims against the estate of Gab Yi Lam, alleging fraud or newly discovered facts regarding the estate's assets.

The court found that Mr. Su had access to information revealing the lack of estate assets prior to agreeing to the consent order.

Any misleading information about the estate's value was provided after the consent order was made and was subsequently corrected.

The court concluded that Mr. Su failed to prove fraud or demonstrate any after-acquired facts that would warrant setting aside the consent order.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants were jointly charged with possessing a controlled substance.

During trial, they sought exclusion of heroin found in their vehicle based on alleged violations of their Charter rights (sections 8 and 9).

The central issue was whether police had reasonable grounds to arrest them.

The Crown sought to introduce a statement made by one defendant to police in 2012 during an unrelated investigation as part of the officer's grounds for arrest.

The defence objected, arguing the Crown must first prove the statement was voluntary.

The court ruled that the Crown does not need to prove voluntariness of an accused's statement prior to its admission in a Charter voir dire, following the reasoning in R v Paterson.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The defendants raised five defenses.

The court granted summary judgment on four defenses (unenforceability due to waiver, bad faith, mitigation, and insufficient funds to close a secondary property purchase), finding no genuine issue for trial on these points.

However, a trial of an issue was ordered to determine the foreseeability of the quantum of forfeited deposits related to the secondary property purchase, as there was conflicting evidence regarding the defendants' knowledge of the deposit amounts at the time of contract.

The defendant brought an application to withdraw his guilty plea to two counts of assault and one count of threatening, all arising from a domestic incident.

The defendant claimed his plea was involuntary because he was threatened by stares from the complainant's family in the courthouse hallway and was subsequently assaulted after leaving court.

The court dismissed the application, finding the plea was voluntary and that the defendant's evidence amounted to mere assertion of involuntariness based on subjective perception rather than objective fact.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant.

The court applied the common sense approach to child evidence while emphasizing that the Crown still bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Significant inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony, prior police statements, and the mother's evidence, combined with evidence of repeated questioning by the mother before successive disclosures, undermined reliability.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted on both counts.

The self‑represented moving party sought to reopen a 2012 judgment dismissing a dependant’s support claim under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, relying on Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and alleging fraud and newly discovered facts.

The court held that all alleged misrepresentations regarding the value of the estate were known to the moving party prior to the original decision and therefore did not constitute newly discovered evidence.

The court emphasized the principle of finality in litigation and found no basis to set aside the prior judgment.

While the court noted potential issues regarding an earlier consent order dismissing related claims, that issue had not been properly brought before the court.

The motion to reopen the trial and set aside the 2012 judgment was refused.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to set aside an earlier interim decision that deemed it to have accepted all allegations due to a failure to file a response.

The respondent claimed it had not received the Tribunal's mailings.

During a case management conference call, the applicant consented to setting aside the interim decision on the condition that he be allowed to amend his application to increase the monetary compensation sought from $5,000 to $10,000.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal ordered the interim decision set aside, directed the respondent to file a response, and permitted the amendment to the application.

The accused was tried on multiple assault counts, one sexual assault count, and a mischief count arising from allegations by a former spouse during and after a short marriage.

The court found the complainant's evidence vague, internally inconsistent, and materially undermined by memory failures and by partial corroboration of the accused's account from another witness.

Applying the W(D.) framework and the requirement to assess the evidence in its totality, the court held that mere preference for the complainant's evidence could not ground conviction.

The Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

Following convictions for first degree murder committed when the offenders were young persons, the Crown applied for adult sentences under s. 72 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court assessed the seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances and criminal histories of the young persons, and broader societal interests including accountability and public protection.

The murder was a planned execution-style killing involving coordinated roles by each offender and subsequent efforts to conceal involvement.

Although two offenders were eligible for Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision orders, the court concluded that youth sentences would not provide sufficient accountability or protection of the public.

Adult sentences were therefore imposed on all three young persons.

Four young persons were charged with the first-degree murder of a sixteen-year-old victim who was shot and killed in a residential building staircase.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the victim into the staircase as part of a planned and deliberate execution, relying heavily on surveillance video and extensive text message evidence containing gang slang.

The court found three of the accused guilty as joint principals or aiders, concluding they orchestrated and executed the plan.

The fourth accused was found not guilty, as the evidence raised suspicions but failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.

The defendant pleaded guilty to seven charges of long-term sexual abuse of four boys: three nephews and the son of a close family friend.

The abuse of the nephews occurred over approximately four to eight years, beginning shortly after their father's death when they were vulnerable.

The abuse of the family friend's son occurred over approximately one year.

The defendant was in his mid-forties when the abuse began and is now fifty-nine years old with no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a sentence of five years in the penitentiary, less credit for one year of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a sentence of four years to be served.

The applicant sought dependant support from the estate of his late common-law spouse.

Although he proved he was a dependant, his claim was ultimately dismissed because the respondent executor distributed all estate assets before the application was commenced and raised a limitation period defence late in the proceedings.

The respondent sought costs of $127,872.01.

The court awarded costs to the respondent but reduced the fees by 50% because the respondent's failure to make timely disclosure about the lack of estate assets unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding an estate and corporate accounting dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fact-driven appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion regarding the amount allowed for mortgage costs.

Costs of the appeal were agreed at $10,000.

The applicant, a former Lead Practice Coordinator at a dental office, alleged she was forced to resign due to harassment and discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, and creed.

She claimed the principal dentist favoured Filipina staff, allowed them to speak in a language other than English, and made an unwelcome comment about her attending church.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant may have experienced a negative employment situation due to differing expectations about her role, there was no evidence that any poor treatment was influenced by a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a second instalment of security for costs totaling approximately $894,960 in complex civil litigation involving a $100 million claim.

The court considered the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances, including the corporate plaintiff’s lack of assets and the impecuniosity of two individual plaintiffs.

Balancing the security for costs rule, an earlier order requiring $125,000 security, and access to justice concerns, the court held that requiring the large additional amount requested would be unjust.

However, recognizing the importance of a damages report for mediation and pre‑trial, the court ordered a limited additional payment of $25,000 as security for costs.

The defendants were granted liberty to seek further security should the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances change.

The applicant sought dependant’s support from a deceased partner’s estate under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act after being found to be the deceased’s common law spouse.

The application was commenced more than six months after the issuance of the certificate of appointment of estate trustee, engaging the limitation in s. 61 of the Act.

The applicant argued that jointly held real estate had been severed prior to death and remained part of the estate for support purposes.

The court held the evidence did not establish severance of the joint tenancies, meaning the properties passed to the surviving joint tenant by right of survivorship.

Because all estate assets had been distributed before the application was commenced and no assets remained, the court declined to extend the limitation period and dismissed the support claim.

The accused were tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and assault arising from alleged abuse of a child over several years within a family setting.

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant and corroborative aspects of a sibling’s evidence, while the defence emphasized inconsistencies between witness accounts and prior statements.

The court accepted that the complainant was generally credible but identified material inconsistencies regarding key events, timing, and corroborating circumstances.

In the absence of forensic or independent third‑party evidence, these inconsistencies created a reasonable doubt.

The accused were acquitted on all counts.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment in an action alleging fraud relating to the alleged obtaining of funds held on deposit with a municipal water department.

The claim involved issues of intention, knowledge, and credibility, as well as the interpretation and scope of a release executed when the parties’ business relationship ended.

Applying the guidance from the Court of Appeal regarding the summary judgment framework and the full appreciation test, the court held that credibility determinations and contextual interpretation of the release required a full evidentiary record.

The court concluded that the issues were unsuitable for summary judgment and that a trial was required.

The court further directed that the pre-trial conference and trial be expedited within the simplified procedure regime.

The appellant vendor appealed a decision granting the respondent purchaser the right to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale for a pre-construction condominium unit and the return of his deposits.

The vendor had failed to provide occupancy by the specified closing date and argued the agreement implicitly allowed for extensions until the unit was substantially completed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreement did not grant the vendor a unilateral right to extend the closing date and that the purchaser had not waived his right to terminate.