Dennison

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault with a weapon, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to the testimonies, erred in assessing motive, and reversed the burden of proof under W. (D.).

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the credibility of both parties in light of the physical evidence, including the complainant's severe injuries from a hatchet, and correctly applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was arrested for impaired care and control after police responded to a call about individuals drinking and smashing bottles in a parking lot.

A search incident to arrest revealed a loaded firearm.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude the firearm and his refusal to provide a breath sample under s. 24(2).

The court found minor breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) but concluded the evidence was either not obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter or should not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The Crown's application to admit the accused's statements regarding his identity was granted.

The plaintiffs brought an urgent motion seeking an interlocutory order vesting title of a disputed property in their names to allow them to refinance and avoid eviction, as well as a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an order setting aside the noting of default on the defendant's counterclaim.

The parties disputed the beneficial ownership of the property, which was registered in the defendant's name.

The Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had previously found the plaintiffs to be tenants and ordered their eviction due to mortgage defaults.

The court set aside the noting of default due to the plaintiffs' former counsel's negligence.

However, the court dismissed the requests for a vesting order and a CPL, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them.

The court also found the motion constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the LTB's eviction order.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of malicious prosecution, defamation, and fraud/theft relating to a saving circle and employment termination.

The defendants also sought default judgement on their counterclaim for theft.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for summary judgement.

The court granted partial summary judgement dismissing the malicious prosecution and defamation claims, finding no evidence that the police lacked independent discretion in laying charges or that defamatory statements were made to third parties.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial for the saving circle and employment monies claims due to credibility issues.

The court also set aside the noting of default on the counterclaim to avoid inconsistent findings at trial.

The self-represented plaintiff filed a $3 million claim against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), alleging the CRA negligently permitted her ex-husband to use her identity to obtain an EFILE number.

The CRA brought a motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff evaded service and failed to attend the hearing.

The court proceeded in her absence, struck the statement of claim in its entirety without leave to amend, finding that the CRA owed no duty of care or fiduciary duty to the plaintiff, and that the claims of malfeasance, conspiracy, and other torts lacked material facts.

Costs of $14,500 were awarded to the CRA.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged oral separation agreement reached between the parties' former counsel.

The respondent argued no agreement was reached and that the discussions were without prejudice.

The court found it had jurisdiction to enforce an oral settlement despite non-compliance with the strict formalities of section 55 of the Family Law Act.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial existed due to diametrically opposed evidence from the two lawyers regarding their settlement discussions.

The court declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers, as the credibility of counsel could not be fairly assessed on a paper record.

The accused was charged with manslaughter after killing his father and setting the body on fire in a vehicle.

The accused had a lengthy history of mental illness and was experiencing severe delusions at the time, believing his father was an alien trying to kill him.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, the court found that the accused suffered from a schizoaffective disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) and the matter was referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The applicant sought damages of $137,772 for losses incurred in a foreign exchange trading account managed by the respondent, who was not registered with the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant brought the matter as an application, alleging negligence, misrepresentation, and unconscionability.

The court found that material facts were in dispute, particularly regarding the applicant's level of investment knowledge and the true nature of the parties' relationship, which required credibility assessments.

Consequently, the court ordered the application converted into an action pursuant to Rule 38.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel of record, arguing he would likely be called as a witness at trial regarding his role in assisting a former franchisee to provide documents to the plaintiffs' previous counsel.

The defendants also sought a further and better affidavit of documents regarding these communications.

The court granted the request for a further affidavit of documents, finding the communications and attachments relevant to the issues at trial.

However, the court dismissed the motion to remove counsel as premature, concluding it was unlikely counsel would be called to testify and his evidence would have tenuous relevance.

The accused brought a Charter application to stay firearm charges or exclude a seized firearm, alleging excessive force during his arrest and breaches of his right to counsel.

The court found that the police did not use excessive force when arresting the fleeing accused.

The court also found no s. 7 breach regarding an officer commanding a witness to stop recording the arrest, as there was no actual prejudice to the accused's defence.

However, the Crown conceded that the accused's s. 10(b) rights were violated when an officer denigrated duty counsel's advice and threatened to charge the accused's family members if he did not confess.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious and deliberate nature of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of the firearm under s. 24(2) of the Charter to maintain the long-term repute of the justice system.

The offender was convicted by a jury of fraud over $5,000, possession of proceeds of crime, and uttering a forged document in relation to a $1.8 million cross-border advance fee scam.

The court found the offender was a directing mind of the fraud, which had a devastating financial and personal impact on the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 46 months' imprisonment, taking into account the harsher prison conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also ordered restitution of approximately $1.45 million, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of approximately $1.86 million, a DNA order, and a 10-year prohibition order.

The applicants and respondent are siblings who own adjacent properties that were previously owned by their parents.

The applicants sought declarations regarding their right to use a shared driveway, a septic system, and a French drain that encroached on the respondent's property.

They also sought a permanent injunction to prevent the respondent from building a fence along the property line, and a determination of rights under an Encroachment Agreement.

The court found that the applicants had an implied grant to use the shared driveway, the septic system, and the land where the French drain was located, as these were necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of their property and had been used continuously since the properties were unified.

The court granted a permanent injunction preventing the fence construction and ordered the applicants' company to remove certain buildings pursuant to the Encroachment Agreement.

The plaintiffs purchased a residential property from the defendants.

After moving in, the plaintiffs discovered the property had previously been used as a marijuana grow-op.

The plaintiffs sued the vendors, their real estate agent, and the brokerage for misrepresentation and negligence.

The vendor defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against them, claiming they had no knowledge of the grow-op.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the vendors' credibility and knowledge, and that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings given the intertwined claims against the real estate agent and brokerage.

The accused, charged with human trafficking and related sexual service offences, sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's continued sex work after their relationship ended.

The Crown argued the accused must bring an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court held that s. 276(1) does not apply to the charged offences, as they lack 'some connection' to the listed sexual offences.

However, applying the common law principles from Seaboyer, the court required a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the evidence to prevent twin-myth reasoning.

The court also exercised its inherent jurisdiction to appoint counsel for the complainant on the voir dire.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and section 7 expenses in an uncontested trial after the respondent father left her and their two children in Canada and obtained a foreign divorce without her knowledge.

The father failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure regarding his gas station businesses in Louisiana.

The court imputed the father's income at $335,400 CAD based on the mother's evidence of his businesses and their lavish lifestyle.

The court granted the mother sole custody, ordered supervised access for the father, and ordered the father to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, section 7 expenses, and $15,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to his bad faith conduct.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of a $180,000 promissory note and a $5,000 loan from a past business venture.

The defendant opposed the motion and counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff was negligent as his real estate agent, caused a business venture to fail, and harassed him.

The court granted summary judgment for the $180,000 promissory note, finding it valid and enforceable.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for the $5,000 loan and the defendant's counterclaims, finding them to be statute-barred and lacking in evidentiary merit.

The defendant was ordered to pay $180,000 plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml.

At trial, it was found that the police breached his Charter rights by arbitrarily detaining him for five hours after his breath tests, as the officer in charge had no notes explaining the detention.

The trial judge declined to stay the proceedings under s. 24(1) and held that s. 24(2) was not applicable because the breath tests were completed before the over-holding occurred.

On appeal, the court found no error in refusing a stay of proceedings.

However, the appeal court held that the trial judge erred in finding s. 24(2) inapplicable, as there was a sufficient temporal and contextual connection between the breath tests and the subsequent unlawful detention.

Applying the Grant framework, the appeal court concluded that the admission of the breath test results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a family law trial, the court determined the calculation of child support and arrears based on $11,000 of imputed income to the respondent father from his DJing business.

The court allowed the father's claimed business expenses, finding them reasonable, and calculated his total income using a Divorcemate gross-up.

The court ordered the father to pay $929 in total child support arrears and set ongoing child support at $498 per month, with the imputed income to be indexed annually to inflation.

The applicant brought a motion to disqualify the respondents' counsel, Lockyer + Hein LLP, on the basis of a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the applicant in related litigation concerning the governance of a not-for-profit corporation.

The court found that the current application was sufficiently related to the prior matters, that there was a realistic possibility the law firm possessed relevant confidential information, and that acting against the former client breached the duty of loyalty.

The motion to disqualify counsel was granted.

The parties separated after a 12-year traditional marriage.

The applicant father retained custody of the two children, while the respondent mother retrained and entered the workforce.

The court determined the parties' incomes for support purposes, declining to find the applicant intentionally underemployed but averaging his income over three years due to a recent drop.

The respondent was awarded spousal support of $650 per month based on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, subject to a five-year review.

The court also ordered retroactive child and spousal support, resulting in a net payment owed by the respondent.

Furthermore, the court enforced a prior consent order requiring the applicant to repay the CRA for child tax benefits improperly received into a joint account post-separation.

Finally, the respondent was ordered to pay her proportional share of certain section 7 expenses.