Douglas G. Gunn

The accused, Allan Yerxa, was charged with manslaughter for the stabbing death of George Tait.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the accused's out-of-court statements, including text messages and a police interview where he confessed to stabbing the victim twice.

The defence argued that the confession was unreliable due to inconsistencies (victim suffered seven stab wounds, not two), lack of independent corroborating evidence (no eyewitness, video, cell phone, or forensic evidence placing the accused at the scene), and the accused's vulnerability during the interview.

The defence also raised self-defence as an alternative.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the truthfulness of the inculpatory portion of the accused's confession beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the significant inconsistencies and the complete absence of independent corroborating evidence.

The court also noted the presence of other individuals with a propensity for violence who were in the vicinity at the time of the stabbing.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty.

In the alternative, the court also found that if the confession were accepted as truthful, the accused's actions could be considered self-defence given the victim's size, intoxication, and initial aggression.

The accused, an Indigenous man with a significant criminal record including a prior manslaughter conviction, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the beating death of the victim.

The court considered the brutal nature of the assault, the use of weapons, and the accused's callous disregard for the victim's life as aggravating factors.

Applying Gladue principles, the court acknowledged the accused's traumatic background but emphasized the need for denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

The accused was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment, reduced to approximately 12 years after credit for pre-sentence custody.

On an application for judicial interim release in an extradition proceeding, the applicant sought release pending a hearing on possible extradition to the United States on allegations analogous to sexual interference.

The court applied the reverse-onus bail framework under the Extradition Act and Part XVI of the Criminal Code, with particular attention to the tertiary ground as explained in St-Cloud.

Although the extradition case was strong and the allegations were grave and disturbing, uncertainty about the precise foreign charges and potential sentence, together with a stringent surety-based release plan, favoured release.

The court held that detention was not justified on the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds and ordered release on extensive conditions.

Katelyn Skead, 26, pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the fatal stabbing of an 80-year-old elder, James Redsky, during a home invasion and attempted car theft while intoxicated.

The court considered a joint submission for a 13-year sentence, with credit for time served.

The sentencing judge applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the offender's horrific childhood, substance abuse issues, and the legacy of colonialism affecting her First Nation community, while also weighing the aggravating factors of the violent nature of the crime and its impact on the victim's family and community.

The joint submission was accepted, resulting in a 13-year sentence less 3 years credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition with an exception for constitutional/treaty hunting and fishing rights.

The accused, Jason Davidson, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, A.K., who has mental and physical challenges, alleged that Davidson committed anal intercourse without her consent.

The court considered the complainant's testimony, which included prior consensual sexual interactions with the accused, and her admission that she performed the act "to please him." Despite finding that the sexual touching occurred, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent, particularly due to inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, her withholding of information from police, and her actions immediately following the alleged assault.

Davidson was acquitted.

Following a successful second trial in an insurance coverage dispute concerning aircraft damage, the court addressed costs and pre‑judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought increased pre‑judgment interest under s.130 of the Courts of Justice Act and substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49.10 based on an earlier offer to settle.

The court exercised its discretion to increase pre‑judgment interest to 1% due to changes in market rates and the lengthy litigation, fixing interest at $7,000.

However, the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the offer to settle equaled the eventual judgment and included substantial indemnity provisions that made the judgment less favourable than the offer.

Costs for the second trial were therefore fixed on a partial indemnity basis with a reduction for the use of two senior counsel.

The defendant, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to making a false or misleading statement under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after dispensing morphine to an undercover officer without a prescription.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence sought a discharge.

The court found that the defendant's actions were motivated by a misguided desire to help someone he perceived to be in withdrawal, rather than for financial gain.

Considering the defendant's good character, lack of criminal record, and the potential professional repercussions of a conviction, the court granted an absolute discharge.

The insured sought recovery under an aircraft insurance policy after a twin‑engine aircraft crashed during an attempted takeoff using only one functioning engine.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the occurrence was not an “accident” and alternatively that the insured breached a policy condition requiring protection of the aircraft from further loss.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence defining an accident as an “unlooked‑for mishap or occurrence,” the court held that negligent conduct may still constitute an accident unless the insured deliberately assumed a known risk.

Although the pilot’s decision to attempt a single‑engine takeoff was negligent and ill‑advised, the evidence did not establish recklessness or deliberate risk assumption sufficient to remove the occurrence from coverage.

The court also found no breach of the policy’s aircraft protection condition.

Judgment was granted for the insured.

The accused pleaded guilty to the kidnapping and sexual assault of two young children in Big Trout Lake, Ontario.

The offences occurred on September 26, 2012, when the accused, in a state of emotional distress following a relationship breakdown, lured four children to his trailer, locked one in the bathroom, and sexually assaulted two young girls both digitally and with his penis, causing significant physical and emotional harm.

The accused was sentenced to six years imprisonment for kidnapping with three years consecutive for sexual assault and three years concurrent for sexual touching, with a lifetime SOIRA order, DNA order, and lifetime weapons prohibition.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the estate of their 'grandfather' figure, Gus Sorkos, seeking to enforce an oral agreement made in 1985.

Under the agreement, the plaintiffs provided unpaid labour to maintain the deceased's farm and cottage properties for over 25 years in exchange for his promise to leave them the properties in his will.

The deceased later changed his will, leaving the properties to others.

The court found the oral agreement was corroborated by third-party witnesses and a prior will.

The court held that the plaintiffs' acts of part performance took the agreement outside the Statute of Frauds and applied the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, finding it would be unconscionable to deny the plaintiffs the properties after they had detrimentally relied on the deceased's promises.

The estate was ordered to convey the properties to the plaintiffs.

A surviving spouse applied for dependant’s support under s.58 of the Succession Law Reform Act after receiving a limited bequest under the deceased’s will.

The deceased’s estate, valued at approximately $2.3 million including foreign assets, primarily left the residue to siblings.

The court held that the surviving spouse qualified as a dependant and that the will and beneficiary designations did not make adequate provision for her proper support, considering her age, health, inability to work, and contributions during the marriage.

Applying the statutory factors in s.62 and the moral obligations analysis from leading Supreme Court authority, the court ordered ongoing monthly support from the estate funded through a lifetime annuity.

The court also adjusted the will’s specific bequest to reflect the support order and prioritized the spouse’s support over other testamentary gifts.

The appellants appealed the decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board to close the Tillsonburg Auction Exchange and market the 2001 tobacco crop exclusively through the Delhi Exchange.

The appellants argued the decision was unreasonable, procedurally unfair, and based on political bias rather than economic efficiencies.

The Tribunal found that the Board's decision was based on a consideration of a range of economic factors, including efficiencies, broad economic impact, and political capital.

The Tribunal concluded the Board did not err in its procedure or make an unfair decision, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board which reduced their basic production quota by 50% for selling tobacco outside the Board's auction exchange.

The appellants admitted to the illegal sales but sought leniency on compassionate grounds due to severe family health and financial stress.

The Tribunal found that while the breach was a serious offense requiring a significant deterrent, the circumstances warranted compassion.

The Tribunal partially granted the appeal, reducing the penalty to a 40% cancellation of the appellants' basic quota to allow them a better opportunity to remain viable tobacco producers.