Dennison

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting breathalyzer results despite alleged Charter breaches and in failing to find a s. 10(b) breach regarding his need for an interpreter.

The summary conviction appeal court found no ss. 8, 9, or 10(b) Charter breaches and held the evidence was admissible.

However, the appeal court found the trial judge erred by taking judicial notice that the appellant's blood alcohol concentration proved impairment without giving the parties notice.

Consequently, the impaired driving conviction was quashed, but the conditional stay on the 'over-80' charge was lifted, a conviction was entered, and the same sentence of a $1,500 fine and a one-year driving prohibition was imposed.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years, brought a faint hope application under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code seeking a reduction in his parole ineligibility period.

The court conducted a judicial screening to determine if there was a reasonable prospect that a unanimous jury would reduce the period.

While acknowledging the applicant's positive institutional conduct, including education and employment, the court found that the applicant lacked true remorse and insight, minimizing his role in the callous murder over a $30 drug debt.

The court also noted recent concerning institutional misconduct and the fact that the applicant would be deported upon release without Parole Board supervision.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown applied on behalf of the complainant to revoke a publication ban issued under s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code.

The court noted recent amendments to s. 486.51 intended to respect complainant autonomy.

Finding that the ban's purpose is to protect the complainant, not the accused, and that the accused had notice but did not seek their own ban, the court granted the application and revoked the publication ban.

The respondent husband brought an interim motion seeking spousal support and the release of funds from the sale of the matrimonial home to fund his litigation and business expenses.

The court found the respondent demonstrated a prima facie case of need for non-compensatory support, imputing a minimum wage income to him and ordering the applicant to pay $2,082 per month.

The court declined to release the full requested funds from the home sale due to the respondent's failure to provide business disclosure, but ordered $15,000 released specifically to pay his accountant to obtain and disclose those records.

The accused was driving a sports car at speeds up to 163 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on a highway, shortly after passing two motorcycles.

As he approached an intersection with a green light, a vehicle turned left into his path, resulting in a collision that killed three people and injured two others.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, concluding his excessive speed near an intersection was a marked departure from the standard of care.

However, the court acquitted him of criminal negligence, finding a reasonable doubt that his conduct amounted to a marked and substantial departure showing wanton or reckless disregard.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The accused argued there was no evidence he caused his suitcase to clear customs or intended to import the drugs, as he was merely transiting through Canada to London.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the actus reus of importing commences when drugs cross the border into Canada, and the mens rea requires only an intention to bring the drugs into Canadian territory, not an intention to clear customs.

The court concluded there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to find the accused guilty.

The moving party father brought a motion to change his spousal and child support obligations due to a reduction in his income.

After establishing the new support amounts, it was determined the father had overpaid support by over $63,000.

The father sought to pay the remaining spousal support as a lump sum, which the responding party mother opposed.

The court declined to order a lump sum payment due to the many future variables affecting both parties' incomes.

The court also determined the termination date for child support, ordered the release of funds held in court as security, and incorporated the parties' agreement regarding section 7 university expenses.

Costs of $23,500 were awarded to the father.

The father brought a motion to set aside a default judgment that granted the mother sole custody and ordered him to pay child support based on an imputed income of $335,400.

He argued he was unable to attend the uncontested trial and that the mother committed fraud on the court.

The court found the father did not act promptly and lacked a plausible excuse for his default.

While the court found the mother did not deliberately mislead the court, it acknowledged the father had an arguable defence regarding his income.

The motion to set aside was dismissed, but the father was permitted to bring a motion to change the order, provided he pays $15,000 in costs and provides extensive financial disclosure.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of approximately $37,000 granted in favour of the plaintiff for unpaid fuel invoices.

The defendants had mistakenly filed their statement of defence in the Small Claims Court and, upon discovering the error, learned that default judgment had already been entered.

Applying the Mountain View Farms factors, the court found that while the defendants delayed in obtaining necessary documents, they had demonstrated an intent to defend the action from the beginning and raised an arguable defence regarding miscalculated rebates.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, though existing writs of execution were ordered to remain in effect pending further order.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board dismissing their property tax assessment appeals for failing to comply with filing deadlines under a new 'Legacy Appeals' schedule.

The applicants argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by creating the Legacy Appeals stream without formally amending its rules and that the dismissal was procedurally unfair.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision and no important question of law.

The Court held the Board had jurisdiction to manage its processes and set schedules, and any procedural irregularities in the dismissal motion were cured before the hearing.

The complainant brought a certiorari application to quash an order granted by a lower court judge that permitted the accused to enter her home to retrieve personal belongings and take photographs.

The order was granted on consent of the Crown, but without notice to the complainant.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had standing to bring the application as a non-party directly impacted by the order.

The court held that the lower court judge made a jurisdictional error, as there was no statutory or common law authority to grant such an order without notice to the third party whose privacy interests were affected.

The order was quashed.

The plaintiff lawyer brought an action for unpaid legal fees totaling $68,893.92 against his former client.

The parties had an oral retainer agreement for mortgage enforcement work.

The defendant disputed the terms of the retainer and the reasonableness of the fees.

The court found that the parties agreed to an hourly rate of $575.

After assessing the accounts and reducing some charges for unreasonableness, the court ordered the defendant to pay $38,342.42 in outstanding fees, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of fentanyl after a traffic stop.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging racial profiling, arbitrary detention, denial of right to counsel, and unreasonable search and seizure (including a strip search).

The court found no evidence of racial profiling, as the officers did not see the accused before running his licence plate.

The court found a minor breach of s. 10(a) because the officers delayed explaining the specific charges on the outstanding warrant, but admitted the drug evidence under s. 24(2).

The searches of the vehicle and the accused were upheld as lawful incidents to arrest.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Following a trial where the applicant mother was successful in obtaining primary residence of the parties' son, she sought costs on a full or partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle, allegations of bad faith, and the respondent father's ability to pay.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under the Family Law Rules, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $28,000 in costs.

The appellant, a surgeon, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a hospital housekeeper.

He argued the trial judge made several errors in assessing credibility, including improperly considering race in finding a power imbalance, misapprehending evidence, and making a Browne and Dunn error.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly based the power imbalance on the parties' respective roles in the hospital and made no reversible errors in his credibility assessments or application of the law.

The Crown appealed a suspended sentence and 12 months' probation imposed on the respondent, a first-time offender who pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm for choking his domestic partner to the point of unconsciousness.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found the sentence demonstrably unfit and held that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to give sufficient weight to denunciation and deterrence.

The court determined the fit sentence was 60 days' imprisonment less pre-trial custody, plus 12 months' probation.

However, given the appellate delay and the respondent's rehabilitative gains, the court permanently stayed the execution of the custodial sentence.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings due to his failure to comply with numerous court orders regarding spousal support, costs, and financial disclosure.

The respondent claimed impecuniosity, which the court rejected, finding he had significant equity in the former matrimonial home and led a lavish lifestyle.

The court held that the respondent's non-compliance was wilful.

Recognizing that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, the court ordered the respondent to pay all outstanding costs and spousal support arrears within 150 days, failing which the applicant was granted leave to renew her motion to strike his pleadings and proceed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order to allow the parties' six-year-old child to reside primarily with her in Barrie, rather than alternating weeks between Barrie and the respondent father's home in Pembroke.

The court found that the child entering full-time school constituted a material change in circumstances.

After weighing the factors under the Divorce Act, including the mother's historical role as primary caregiver, the child's strong bond with his half-brother, and the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, the court determined it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother.

The father was granted liberal parenting time.

The applicant and respondent purchased a house together as tenants in common.

The respondent moved out shortly after, and the applicant paid all mortgage and maintenance fees while living in the property rent-free.

After the property was sold, the applicant sought a declaration of unjust enrichment and a constructive trust, claiming 90% of the net proceeds.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the applicant suffered no deprivation and there was a juristic reason to enforce their agreement to split proceeds equally.

The court ordered the net proceeds to be divided equally after accounting for deductions, including the applicant's operating expenses and the respondent's entitlement to occupational rent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.D. framework and erred in assessing credibility.

An off-duty officer had observed the appellant driving erratically on Highway 401, which was captured on dash camera.

The appellant later crashed his vehicle and was arrested, exhibiting signs of impairment.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, did not reverse the onus, and sufficiently explained his reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the officers' observations.