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.

The offender, a 37-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of simple possession of cocaine (29.4 grams), methamphetamine, and codeine.

The Crown sought 6 to 8 months in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence and probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the quantity of cocaine, but also considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, cooperation with police, and family circumstances.

The court sentenced the offender to 90 days in custody for the cocaine possession, and suspended sentences with 12 months of probation for the other two offences.

During a trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown brought an application to qualify a police officer as an expert in the use, pricing, sale, and distribution of cocaine.

The court dismissed the application without a formal voir dire, finding that the proposed evidence failed the Mohan test for admissibility.

Specifically, the court held that the evidence lacked legal relevance as it was not grounded on proven facts and was unnecessary because the inferences sought by the Crown, such as interpreting text messages, did not require expert assistance.

The accused, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search.

The police stopped the accused's vehicle and arrested him without a warrant based on confidential informant information and surveillance.

The police subsequently searched his vehicle incident to arrest and found cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the vehicle search was a valid search incident to arrest.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement reached during mediation.

The appellant argued that he wanted to seek a second opinion before finalizing the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that a binding settlement had been reached while the appellant was represented by counsel.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking numerous forms of relief in a construction lien dispute, several successful parties sought costs against the moving owners.

The court considered the presumption that successful litigants receive costs and the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court rejected arguments that alleged misconduct by the successful parties disentitled them to costs and held that the motion was largely unsuccessful and unnecessary in several respects.

Full recovery costs were awarded to one contractor whose claim should never have been contested, while partial indemnity costs were granted to the contractor and subcontractors in reduced amounts to remain fair and proportionate.

The moving parties, owners of a motel, brought a motion under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to discharge or vacate several construction liens registered by the contractor and subcontractors.

The owners argued the liens should be discharged or, alternatively, vacated upon posting $100,000 as security.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a motion to discharge a lien is akin to a summary judgment motion and there were numerous genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, including responsibility for delays, scope of the contract, and quality of work.

The court also declined to arbitrarily reduce the security amount required to vacate the liens from the $489,000 claimed.

The young person appealed a conviction entered by a summary conviction appeal judge, arguing a violation of her s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the burden was on the accused to demonstrate a violation and there was no evidence to support the claim.

The failure of police to record that the accused did not wish to speak to a lawyer did not establish a failure to comply with s. 10(b).

The appellant appealed a decision affirming the Minister of Finance's assessment of retail sales tax.

The appellant argued its boats were exempt under the Retail Sales Tax Act as they operated for 'commercial purposes' providing public transportation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the boats operated primarily for tourist purposes, such as glass-bottom shipwreck tours, rather than transportation.

The court also rejected the argument that refitting expenses were exempt capital costs, noting the tax applies to tangible personal property regardless of capital purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were charged with cruelty to animals after a search of their property under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (OSPCAA) resulted in the seizure of numerous animals.

The trial judge acquitted the appellants, finding the search warrant invalid because it authorized multiple officers to enter, which she held violated the OSPCAA.

On appeal, the Summary Conviction Appeal Court applied the Interpretation Act to find that the singular wording in the OSPCAA included the plural, validating the warrant and ordering a new trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that the Interpretation Act applied, the search was reasonable, and the presence of police officers to keep the peace did not violate the appellants' Charter rights.