David Silver

The applicant and respondent, who are brothers and equal shareholders in several corporations, commenced competing proceedings alleging oppression, misappropriation of funds, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The respondent brought a motion to convert the applicant's application into an action and consolidate it with his own action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the extensive factual disputes, serious allegations of dishonesty, and need for credibility assessments required a full trial with oral evidence.

The proceedings were consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judicial findings.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal order and restore their collection action to the trial list.

The Court of Appeal found two reviewable errors: the motion judge erred in principle by failing to consider the respondent's lackadaisical conduct in assessing prejudice, and made a palpable and overriding error in finding the appellants showed disinterest in the action despite evidence they had contacted their lawyer multiple times seeking updates.

Considering the matter afresh, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal order, and restored the action to the trial list.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder.

The hospital and the Attorney General supported an absolute discharge.

The Board found that the accused no longer represents a significant threat to the safety of the public, noting his six-year absence of psychotic symptoms, medication adherence, and abstinence from substances.

The Board ordered an absolute discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, sought a conditional discharge.

The hospital and Crown advocated for a continued Detention Order.

The Board found that the accused continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a history of violence, medication noncompliance, and decompensation exacerbated by cannabis use.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order, maintained the cannabis ban, and permitted travel passes within Ontario.

The accused, who was found not criminally responsible for sexual assault and assaulting a peace officer, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance use disorder and recently had a restriction of liberty following an altercation with a co-patient.

All parties jointly submitted that the current Disposition, a Detention Order with privileges up to living in the community, should remain unchanged.

The Board agreed, finding the current Disposition appropriate, justified, and the least onerous and restrictive in the circumstances.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for a mandatory annual review.

Diagnosed with schizophrenia, the accused had been stable in the community for 18 months, compliant with medication, and engaged in treatment.

The Board found that while the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, the risk could be adequately managed with a conditional discharge.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with terms including residence at a specific group home and abstaining from drugs and alcohol.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition pursuant to s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences including assault and uttering threats, suffers from schizoaffective disorder and a mild intellectual disability.

The hospital presented evidence that while the accused had a positive year with fewer hospital admissions, he continues to struggle with treatment compliance and substance use.

The Board applied the Winko test and concluded that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the detention order as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and other offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, has remained stable and compliant with medication while residing in a supervised group home.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted psychiatric evidence that the accused would likely discontinue treatment and pose a significant threat to public safety if discharged absolutely.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with terms including residence at the group home, abstinence from intoxicants, and a treatment condition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not guilty by reason of insanity for first-degree murder.

The accused, diagnosed with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, has been detained in a hospital with a plan for gradual transition to a supervised community residence.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The current detention order, allowing for residence in a 24-hour supervised community accommodation, was maintained as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

This decision concerns a status hearing in a civil action for damages for sexual assault.

The plaintiff, A.B., was required to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for delay.

The court found that A.B. provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, primarily due to the parties' agreement to await the completion of related criminal proceedings and the production of Wagg documents before proceeding with discoveries.

The court also found that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action continued.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The Minister assessed the Appellant using the net worth method for failing to report substantial income from his contracting business and rental properties in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 taxation years, and imposed gross negligence penalties.

The Tax Court found the Appellant was not a credible witness and upheld the net worth assessments, subject only to specific concessions made by the Respondent regarding personal expenditures.

The Court also upheld the gross negligence penalties, finding the Appellant knowingly understated his income.

The Appellants participated in the Global Learning Gifting Initiative (GLGI) program and claimed charitable donation tax credits for both cash contributions and educational courseware licenses.

The Minister reassessed to deny the credits.

The Appellants conceded the gift-in-kind receipts were invalid but appealed to claim the cash contributions.

The Tax Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, finding that the GLGI program was a single interconnected arrangement designed to enrich participants.

The Court held that the Appellants lacked donative intent when making the cash contributions, and that subsections 248(30) to (32) of the Income Tax Act do not displace the common law requirement for donative intent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial and to set a timetable for remaining steps.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court found that the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, as they were actively working with experts to prepare liability and damages reports, despite their counsel's failure to communicate with the defendant.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The plaintiffs' motion was granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

The applicant, Brown’s Clearwater West Lodge Inc., brought two motions: one to consolidate two related actions (a share purchase action and a mortgage action) and another to set aside default judgments obtained by the respondent, Caroline Manon Labonte, in the mortgage action.

The court granted both motions, finding that the default judgments were irregularly obtained and should be set aside as of right without imposing terms.

The court also found that consolidation was appropriate given the interwoven issues and common questions of fact and law stemming from the same share purchase agreement, promoting judicial efficiency and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

The respondent brought a motion to compel the appellant to answer two questions asked during examinations for discovery.

The first question related to assumptions of fact pled by the respondent, which the Court found the appellant had now answered.

The second question asked the appellant to distinguish his facts from a prior Tax Court decision.

The Court found the original question improperly required a legal analysis, but allowed the respondent to serve a list of purported findings of fact from the prior case for the appellant to address.

The motion was granted in part, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to vary timetable orders to extend the set down date for trial in an action concerning alleged manufacturing defects in water pipes.

The action had been delayed for several years, primarily due to the plaintiffs' failure to answer undertakings from discoveries.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, did not demonstrate inadvertence, failed to bring the motion promptly, and did not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.

This judgment concerns the trial of Evan Dunlop-Dewar on sexual assault charges.

The court first provided reasons for preliminary rulings, including the severance of counts and the exclusion of the defendant's statement due to Charter Section 10(b) breaches and involuntariness.

Regarding the October 30th sexual assault allegation, the court found significant difficulties with the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies in her testimony, under-reporting of drug use, and evasive demeanour under cross-examination.

Despite forensic evidence of sexual contact, the Crown failed to prove the essential element of lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence and circumstantial evidence did not establish incapacity.

The defendant was acquitted on counts 2, 3, and 4.

A five-year common-law peace bond was imposed, prohibiting contact and association with the complainant, with specific geographic considerations for their shared industry.

The appellant, an agricultural equipment manufacturer, appealed the Minister's disallowance of its 2005 SR&ED claim for seven tractor projects.

The Tax Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part, finding that the appellant's activities with respect to a 535-HP tractor in one of the projects constituted experimental development due to the system uncertainty involved in integrating a new, more powerful engine.

The Court allowed one-third of the claimed expenditures for that project, amounting to $972,066, as qualified SR&ED expenditures.

The youthful first-time offender was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and related offences after a loaded handgun was found in his waistband during a vehicle search.

The Crown sought 3 to 3.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the offence as regulatory, finding it fell on the 'true crime' spectrum.

After considering mitigating factors including youth, remorse, and stringent bail conditions, as well as the impact of anti-Black racism and potential immigration consequences, the court imposed a sentence of 2 years and 10 months (1,030 days) in custody, reduced to 856 days after pre-sentence and bail credits.

The plaintiff appealed an Associate Justice's order discharging two certificates of pending litigation due to material nondisclosure on an ex parte motion.

The court found no error in the Associate Justice's decision and dismissed the appeal.

However, the plaintiff also moved for a Mareva injunction over the proceeds of sale of a property owned by the defendant daughter, arguing she failed to transfer a condominium to him as required by a separation agreement.

The court granted the Mareva injunction, finding a strong prima facie case, risk of dissipation of assets, and irreparable harm, and relieved the plaintiff from providing an undertaking in damages due to his limited financial means.