Douglas A. Grace

Tyler Downs was found guilty by a jury of dangerous driving, by racing, causing bodily harm.

The court considered aggravating factors including the high speed street racing and severe injuries, and mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of criminal record, positive presentence report, and remorse.

For parity, the sentence of a co-accused, Bridge, was considered.

The court imposed a sentence of nine months imprisonment, a three-year driving prohibition, a ten-year firearms prohibition, and a secondary DNA order.

Following a trial regarding failed real estate transactions where the plaintiff achieved mixed success, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $55,000, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court awarded the plaintiff discounted partial indemnity costs of $25,000, factoring in the mixed success at trial and the defendant's unreasonable conduct as a landlord.

This is an amended endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario modifying a prior costs award.

The appellants requested an increase to the costs awarded in the court's endorsement of April 21, 2017, with the respondent not opposing the modification.

The court increased the costs awarded to the appellants to $8,500 for fees plus $1,539 for disbursements plus HST.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment obtained by the respondent in an action for payment of outstanding invoices for subcontractor work.

The Court of Appeal found that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to sign judgment against the individual appellants for invoices billed to the corporate appellant, as the claims against them were for breach of trust and conversion, not for a debt or liquidated demand in money.

The court also found that the Registrar erred in awarding interest at 2% per month when this rate was not pleaded.

The motion judge applied the Kisel criteria too rigidly and failed to consider whether justice required the action to proceed on its merits.

The appellants had arguable defences and the respondent suffered no prejudice from setting aside the judgment.