Diane Condo

This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing a former wife's application for spousal support and equalization of net family properties under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge had dismissed the application, finding that a Lebanese annulment of the marriage deprived the Ontario court of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in law, clarifying that a "former spouse" under s. 7 of the Family Law Act is not restricted to those divorced in Canada, and foreign corollary relief proceedings do not remove the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction over equalization claims.

The appellant withdrew her claim for spousal support.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for consideration of the equalization claim.

This consolidated appeal addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained through a wiretap authorization granted in 2016 for a 2009 murder investigation.

The Court of Appeal found that the authorization was improperly granted due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds, as the affidavit failed to establish a credible-based probability that interceptions would yield evidence of the long-dormant homicide or that other investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

The court emphasized that a generic investigative plan and unsupported inferences of continued association among targets after several years were insufficient.

Consequently, the interceptions constituted a serious breach of Charter s. 8 rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court upheld the exclusion of the evidence under Charter s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on privacy interests.

The appeals from conviction were allowed, and acquittals were entered, while the appeals from acquittal were dismissed.

This appeal and cross-appeal arose from a fraudulent scheme involving the sale of used vehicles.

The trial judge found the appellant garage liable for conversion of five missing vehicles and awarded damages of $40,792.

The trial judge dismissed conversion claims regarding consigned vehicles, finding the parties acquired them in good faith without notice of defects in title.

The appellants challenged the findings regarding stolen vehicles, mitigation of damages, quantum of damages, and the failure to adjudicate certain counterclaims.

The respondents cross-appealed the mercantile agent finding and the costs award.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, with limited relief granted for a contribution and indemnity claim against one defendant.

The applicants, charged with robbery, assault, and weapons offences, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence obtained through intercepted communications.

The court previously found that the wiretap authorization was issued without reasonable and probable grounds, violating the applicants' s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court found the state conduct to be at the more serious end of the spectrum and the impact on the applicants' privacy rights to be significant.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered the intercepted communications excluded.

The applicants brought a pre-trial application challenging a wiretap authorization, alleging a breach of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The authorization was sought in the investigation of a homicide that occurred 7.5 years prior.

The court conducted a facial inquiry of the supporting affidavit and found that it failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds that the wiretap would afford evidence of the homicide.

Specifically, there was no credible evidence or reasonable inference that the targets maintained contact or would communicate about the homicide after such a significant passage of time.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that judicial notice could be taken of ongoing communication, distinguishing the facts from cases involving active criminal organizations.

The sub-facial inquiry, which examined the Project Proposal, did not undermine the affidavit's veracity regarding the primary purpose of the investigation.

Consequently, the court found that the evidence obtained through intercepted communications was obtained in violation of the applicants' s. 8 Charter rights.

The application was scheduled to continue for argument on the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The plaintiffs, corporate vehicle dealerships, sued the defendants for conversion, fraud, and conspiracy after a rogue wholesaler fraudulently sold 23 of the plaintiffs' vehicles to the defendant dealership, Sami's Garage.

The vehicles were categorized as missing/stolen, consigned, and stop-payment vehicles.

The court found that the missing vehicles were stolen, meaning the rogue wholesaler could not pass good title, rendering Sami's Garage liable in conversion for those vehicles.

However, for the consigned and stop-payment vehicles, the court held that the rogue wholesaler acted as a mercantile agent with ostensible authority.

Because Sami's Garage purchased these vehicles in good faith and without notice of the defective title, it acquired good title under the Sale of Goods Act and the Factors Act.

The plaintiffs' claims regarding the consigned and stop-payment vehicles were dismissed against Sami's Garage, though the rogue wholesaler and his associate were held liable.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence and/or obtain a stay of proceedings due to alleged breaches of Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10, including unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention, warrantless vehicle search, delay in right to counsel, unreasonable residence search, and unlawful detention of occupants.

The court dismissed all applications, finding the arrest lawful, the high-risk takedown reasonable, no breach of the right to counsel, the vehicle search lawful incident to arrest, and the residence entry and search reasonable given the circumstances and lack of sufficient evidence of unreasonable damage.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal raised three main issues: the validity of the search warrants, the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis regarding the exclusion of evidence, and the finding that possession was for trafficking purposes.

The trial judge had found a reasonable apprehension of bias by the issuing justice due to an indirect familial connection, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the search warrant was validly issued on the merits, the s. 24(2) analysis was appropriate, and the quantity and nature of materials seized supported the trafficking inference.

The appellant appealed his convictions on 11 counts of weapons offences and his sentence of eight years.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of firing a handgun at a third party and then chasing the shooter, ultimately disposing of the weapon in a recycling bin.

The sole issue at trial was whether the pursuer was the appellant or his friend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the burden of proof and noting that the appellant's blood was found on the recovered handgun, his clothing matched witness descriptions, and he was the only injured party.

The court also upheld the eight-year sentence, noting it was a second firearms offence committed while subject to weapons prohibition orders, and that the mandatory minimum penalty of seven years applied under s. 244(3) of the Criminal Code.

A licensed pharmacist was convicted after trial of trafficking over 5,000 fentanyl patches over a two-year period, public mischief for staging a false robbery to cover up inventory discrepancies, and fraud against his insurance company.

The offender, who owned three pharmacies, ordered fentanyl from licensed suppliers and distributed the vast majority of patches illegally through false prescriptions and to a co-conspirator.

When the discrepancy was discovered by an employee, the offender staged a robbery with the co-conspirator, reported it to police, and defrauded his insurance company of over $36,000.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 years imprisonment for trafficking, with concurrent five-year sentences for public mischief and fraud.

The accused brought a motion to change counsel to Me Diane Condo after his previous counsel could no longer represent him for a 10-week trial.

The Crown opposed the change, arguing Me Condo had a conflict of interest because she previously represented the accused's alleged co-conspirator, who might be called as a Crown witness.

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest, noting Me Condo received no relevant confidential information from the co-conspirator, the co-conspirator consented to the representation, and the defense proposed a plan where previous counsel would cross-examine the co-conspirator if called.

The court emphasized the accused's right to counsel of choice and the significant delay that would result if new counsel had to be retained.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to stay a summary judgment motion initiated by the defendants.

The trial was scheduled for May 2018, and the summary judgment motion was scheduled for March 2018.

The plaintiffs argued the motion required leave and was inappropriate.

The court found that leave was not required because the defendants had not consented to the action being placed on a trial list.

However, the court permanently stayed the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not resolve the entire action, would duplicate efforts, and could delay the scheduled trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his action against the Ottawa Police Services Board for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and Charter infringement.

The appellant had been arrested and charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of explosives.

He was convicted at trial but the conviction was overturned on appeal due to misdirection and inadmissible hearsay evidence.

On retrial, the Crown's case collapsed due to evidentiary difficulties and the appellant was acquitted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the committal for trial and the order for a new trial constituted sufficient judicial determinations to support reasonable and probable grounds for the prosecution, absent a fundamental flaw in the criminal proceedings.

The accused, a pharmacist charged with trafficking in Fentanyl, public mischief, fraud, and conspiracy to commit robbery, brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 11(b) rights due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 28 months and 11 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice trials.

After calculating defence delay at approximately 5.5 months, the net delay was approximately 23 months, exceeding the ceiling.

The Crown sought to justify the excess delay based on case complexity and transitional case considerations.

The court found the case was not particularly complex but accepted the transitional case exception, considering the institutional delays plaguing the Ottawa jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offences, prejudice to the accused, and the defence's lack of diligence in moving the case forward.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial as scheduled.

The defendant, having successfully obtained summary judgment, sought costs of both the summary judgment motion and the action.

The plaintiff conceded liability for costs but disputed the quantum.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and principles from appellate decisions, fixed partial indemnity costs for the motion and the action, rejecting the plaintiff's proposed all-inclusive amount and adjusting the defendant's requested amounts to account for internal billing and potential overlap with a resolved claim.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The central issue was the reliability and credibility of the complainant's identification evidence, which was potentially tainted by alcohol consumption, examination of Facebook photos of the accused, and subsequent encounters.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable, noting his admitted lies to police and perjury at the preliminary inquiry.

Due to these inconsistencies and lack of corroborating evidence, the court could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's identity as the stabber.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The plaintiff, who was acquitted of murder after two trials, sued the police for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches.

The defendant police board moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and charge the plaintiff based on the evidence available at the time, including a co-conspirator's statement.

The plaintiff failed to provide evidence of malice, bad faith, or that the investigation fell below the standard of care.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay, which the plaintiff consented to, leaving only the issue of costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiff's lack of response to communications and failure to comply with prior court orders.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs, claiming the fees were excessive and that her inaction amounted to abandonment.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs and awarded partial indemnity, reducing the claimed hours for motion preparation.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether there is sufficient evidence to commit seven accused persons to stand trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawful entry arising from a brutal attack on the victim in the early morning hours of November 17, 2013.

The Crown's theory is that the attack was undertaken in retaliation for an assault on the brother of one of the accused the previous day.

The court applies the prima facie case standard, examining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of each charge.

The decision addresses complex issues regarding the mens rea of attempted murder, the admissibility of hearsay statements, the evaluation of circumstantial identification evidence, and the requirements for party liability.

The Crown brought a section 540(7) application seeking to admit witness statements as evidence at a preliminary inquiry without requiring the witnesses to testify.

The application involved four key witnesses: Jessica Walker, Samantha Daoust, Mark Sudiacal, and Jason Klein.

The Crown sought to admit their statements under the Criminal Code provision that permits justices to receive evidence that would not otherwise be admissible if the justice considers it credible or trustworthy.

The court admitted the statements of Daoust, Sudiacal, and Klein, as well as the videotaped statements of Walker, but excluded Walker's off-camera statement recorded in police notes.

The decision provides comprehensive guidance on the interpretation and application of section 540(7).