Diane Condo

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 accused were charged with multiple offences including conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking, and participating in a criminal organization following a lengthy police investigation involving wiretaps and surveillance.

The court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic and trafficking in cocaine, relying on intercepted communications and surveillance evidence establishing their roles in an ongoing drug distribution network.

However, the court acquitted them of the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure or leadership to meet the statutory definition.

The court also dismissed the accused's application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, concluding that the 38-month delay was justified by the case's complexity and the transitional exception under the Jordan framework.

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 appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, which included a dangerous offender designation.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the proceedings and in assessing future risk and the predicate offence for the dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings regarding the stay.

The Court also upheld the dangerous offender designation, noting the trial judge properly relied on the appellant's criminal record, expert clinical assessment of high risk for violent recidivism, and history of breaching release conditions.

The predicate offence of robbery at knifepoint was found to constitute an act of serious personal violence.

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 appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime, arguing the trial judge misapprehended identification evidence and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to rely on police testimony regarding the seller's location in the vehicle and physical description.

The appeal was dismissed as the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence and the verdict was reasonable.

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).

The Crown sought reconsideration of a preliminary inquiry judge's ruling denying a section 540(7) application to file transcripts of witness statements.

The initial judge had rejected the application as inadequately presented and lacking sufficient grounding.

The Crown subsequently renewed the application with a fuller record.

The presiding judge ruled that reconsideration was permissible, finding that the initial ruling was not a final determination on the merits of section 540(7) admissibility but rather a rejection of the application as presented.

The judge held that interlocutory evidentiary rulings can be reconsidered where there is no prejudice to the defence and where the interests of justice support reconsideration, particularly in preliminary inquiries where evidentiary errors cannot be appealed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and 12-month conditional sentence arising from his attempt to board a flight with a handgun and ammunition in his checked baggage.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended his mother's testimony that she had packed the bag without his knowledge.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge misapprehended one minor aspect of the mother's evidence, the record amply supported the conclusion that her testimony was unbelievable due to multiple inconsistencies.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court agreed that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a firearm.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the police officer acted in good faith and in admitting the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach during a vehicle search.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's good faith determination and deferring to her s. 24(2) balancing.

Two accused were jointly tried for multiple offences arising from a home invasion in which one perpetrator posed as a pizza delivery driver to gain entry and threaten the occupants with a handgun while another attempted to duct-tape one victim.

Fingerprint evidence connected both accused to a pizza box used as a decoy, and the court considered whether that evidence, together with eyewitness descriptions, proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court held that the cumulative evidence established that one accused was the intruder carrying the pizza box and handgun.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the handgun was a real firearm within the meaning of the Criminal Code where the weapon was not recovered and eyewitness observations were limited.

The court also addressed the Kienapple principle and found no legal nexus between robbery and attempted unlawful confinement, allowing separate convictions.

Convictions were entered for break and enter, robbery, and attempted unlawful confinement, with several firearm-related counts resulting in acquittals.

The accused were charged with seventeen counts including uttering threats, forcible confinement, extortion, assault, intimidation, being unlawfully in a dwelling, and firearms offences.

The charges arose from incidents occurring in late November and early December 2013 in an apartment building in Ottawa.

The Crown alleged the accused took over an apartment and committed various crimes within it.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the accused guilty on several counts related to possession of a prohibited firearm, threatening with a firearm, and extortion, but acquitted them on other counts including unlawful confinement and various assault-related charges.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, assault, intimidation, and uttering death threats following an altercation with his girlfriend's landlord and the building caretaker.

He appealed only the criminal harassment conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider all necessary elements of the offence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant's conduct was harassing, that he possessed the requisite mens rea, and that the elderly complainant's fear for her safety was objectively reasonable.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of nine years in custody for possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to traffic cocaine.

He argued the sentence exceeded the range for a first offender, violated the parity principle compared to his co-accused, and overemphasized denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was justified by the totality principle, the appellant's role as a supplier with a higher quantum of drugs, and the trial judge's proper consideration of mitigating factors.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision dismissing his appeal against convictions for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and failure to comply with a recognizance, and reducing his sentence to nine months.

The appellant argued the appeal judge erred regarding the application of W.(D.) and the test for an unreasonable verdict.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding no errors of law, and dismissed the fresh evidence application as the proposed evidence could not reasonably be expected to change the verdict.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 683(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to compel the complainant to attend for cross-examination in support of a fresh evidence application.

The proposed fresh evidence consisted of an affidavit from the appellant's daughter alleging the complainant lied at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed fresh evidence did not suggest the complainant lied at trial, but rather that she had been deceived by her husband.

The court concluded that cross-examination of the complainant was not in the interests of justice as there was no reasonable possibility it could undermine her credibility on matters material to the harassment allegations.

The appellant appealed a 22-month sentence for offences including assault, death threats, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider the totality principle when imposing consecutive sentences.

Given the offender's youth, the court granted leave to appeal and reduced the total sentence to 18 months, resulting in 13 months going forward after accounting for 5 months of pre-sentence custody.

The Crown brought a pre‑trial motion seeking admission of similar fact evidence relating to several convenience store robberies to prove identity of the perpetrators in a multi-count indictment involving robberies committed by one or more offenders.

The court applied the framework governing similar fact evidence from R. v. Perrier, R. v. Handy, and R. v. Arp, including the additional requirements where group criminal activity involves rotating participation.

The court found sufficient distinctive similarities among three robberies committed by a single offender to admit evidence of a prior conviction as similar fact evidence against one accused on the issue of identity.

However, the Crown failed to establish the necessary distinctive modus operandi among the group robberies because numerous material differences undermined the alleged common signature.

As a result, most of the requested similar act evidence was excluded.