Douglas K. Gray

The accused, W.G., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of L.S., who was 15 years old at the time.

The central issue was whether W.G. had an honest but mistaken belief that L.S. was at least 16 years of age, and if so, whether he took "all reasonable steps" to ascertain L.S.'s age as required by s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while W.G. genuinely believed L.S. was 18, he failed to take all reasonable steps to verify L.S.'s age, given the significant age disparity and L.S.'s efforts to conceal his true age.

Consequently, the defence under s. 150.1(4) was unavailable, and W.G. was found guilty of both offences.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent for operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol level exceeding 80 mg.

The trial judge had excluded breath test results under s.24(2) of the Charter, finding a s.8 violation due to the police officer's unawareness of mouth alcohol issues affecting Approved Screening Device (ASD) accuracy.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge erred in concluding a s.8 Charter violation, as sufficient time had elapsed between the last drink and the ASD test.

Furthermore, even if a s.8 breach occurred, the trial judge erred in the s.24(2) analysis by mischaracterizing the impact of the breach as significant, contrary to recent Court of Appeal jurisprudence.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, a conviction substituted, and the matter remitted for sentencing.

The applicant, a police constable, sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission upholding his dismissal for unnecessary use of force against a person in custody.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission applied the correct standard of review and reasonably concluded that the penalty of dismissal was warranted despite some errors by the Hearing Officer.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement on appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and relevant taxes.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of two actions: one against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on a sidewalk, and another against the TTC for a transit injury.

The appellant alleged numerous errors, primarily challenging the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the trial judge's adverse credibility findings against the appellant were entitled to deference and contained no palpable and overriding errors.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the City was not grossly negligent and that the thin-skull principle did not apply because causation was not established.

The appellant appealed a Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Tribunal based its decision on the appellant's dishonest reporting of pending charges on two occasions, despite the absence of other complaints regarding sexual misconduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable as the Registrar relies on honest reporting to monitor the industry.

No costs were awarded.

An employee challenged the enforceability of a termination clause in his employment contract with IBM.

The motion judge found the clause ambiguous and unenforceable, holding that it did not clearly exclude the employee's entitlement to damages at common law.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that when read as a whole, the termination clause was unambiguous and clearly excluded common law damages.

The clause provided for notice or pay in lieu calculated according to a formula, with a failsafe provision ensuring compliance with the Employment Standards Act.

The court found no violation of the ESA and awarded costs to IBM.

The applicant, a funding organization, sought possession of fitness equipment leased to various numbered companies operating out of premises owned by the respondent landlord.

The leases were in default.

The respondent challenged the applicant's status, arguing the leases were not properly assigned from the original lessor.

The court found the assignment was valid and the applicant had the right to possession under the leases, the General Security Agreements, and the Personal Property Security Act.

The court granted the application, ordering the respondent to cease impeding the applicant's access to the equipment.

The appellant, Broadgrain Commodities Inc., sold sesame seeds to Beidahuang Grain Group Co. Ltd. under a CIF contract.

The goods were damaged during transit.

The appellant obtained marine insurance from the respondent, Continental Casualty Company, but the respondent denied coverage.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action, finding that although the appellant had an insurable interest, it sustained no loss as it was paid in full by Beidahuang.

The appellant appealed, arguing it suffered loss through subsequent short-payments from Beidahuang.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to provide any credible evidence of loss and that a self-serving affidavit without supporting documentation was insufficient to create a triable issue.

Following a Court of Appeal decision remitting the issue of damages to the Superior Court, the plaintiff sought damages under the Arthur Wishart Act after rescinding a franchise agreement due to the franchisor's failure to provide a disclosure document.

The court assessed the plaintiff's claims for lost income, non-competition covenant compliance, and office expenses.

The court awarded $22,317, covering lease payments, office insurance, and a portion of the claimed lost income, while dismissing claims for equipment costs and lost income related to the non-competition covenant.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim against the City of Markham and Markham Public Library.

The trial judge found that the operative contract terms permitted the respondents to terminate the agreement without cause on 30 days' notice, and that the respondents exercised this right in good faith.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's contractual interpretation or factual findings and dismissed the appeal.

The court also rejected allegations of procedural unfairness and declined to grant leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment on three grounds: the trial judge's credibility assessments, alleged collusion by one respondent with witnesses, and prejudice from a five-month trial adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's credibility findings were adequately explained within the context of the entire judgment and were warranted on the evidence.

The court found no evidentiary support for the collusion allegation, noting that the witnesses' trial testimony was inconsistent with the "will-say" statements allegedly prepared by the respondent, making collusion implausible.

The court rejected the adjournment argument, holding that absent demonstrated actual prejudice or a request for an earlier date at trial, a five-month adjournment does not presumptively require a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The accused were charged with multiple offences relating to the theft and fraudulent claiming of a $12.5 million winning Super 7 lottery ticket.

The Crown alleged that a convenience store clerk stole the winning free play ticket from a customer and subsequently had his daughter claim the prize.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including lottery terminal data, cellphone records, and banking records, the court found the father guilty of theft, fraud, and possession of stolen property.

The daughter was found guilty of fraud and possession of stolen property.

The son was found guilty of stealing other lottery tickets but acquitted of the charges relating to the $12.5 million ticket.

All accused were acquitted of money laundering.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant lawyer for professional negligence after a previous court decision set aside the transfer of an elderly man's home to the plaintiffs due to their undue influence.

The defendant lawyer admitted he breached the standard of care by failing to ensure the elderly man had separate legal representation.

However, the court dismissed the action, finding that the lawyer's breach did not cause the plaintiffs' damages, as independent legal advice would have simply prevented the fraudulent transaction from occurring in the first place.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after the complainant's neck was slashed with a knife at a party.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony from an intoxicated witness and DNA evidence linking the accused to the knife handle and the complainant to the blade.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as improbable and found the DNA evidence compelling corroboration of the eyewitness account.

The court also ruled that the expert DNA evidence was admissible despite the technologists who performed the tests not being called to testify.

The accused was found guilty.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding the enforcement of consent orders that required them to use a parenting coordinator with secondary arbitration powers.

The applicant argued the court lacked jurisdiction to delegate decision-making to an arbitrator and that the agreement was an unenforceable 'agreement to agree'.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that courts have jurisdiction to incorporate arbitration requirements on consent and that the essential terms of the agreement were binding.

The court applied the principle of good faith contractual performance, ordering the applicant to sign the parenting coordinator agreement and provide her full income tax returns within 30 days, deferring a formal contempt order.

The applicant, a former flight attendant, challenged the loss of nine years of seniority resulting from an arbitration award that integrated seniority lists following the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.

He argued that the devaluation of his seniority violated his rights to liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter, and his equality rights under section 15.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that seniority is a product of collective bargaining and does not engage the liberty or security interests protected by section 7.

Furthermore, the court found no violation of section 15, as seniority ranking is not an enumerated or analogous ground of discrimination.

This motion concerned a garnishment dispute in a family law matter.

The respondent sought to garnish the applicant's Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) payments to satisfy a substantial lump sum spousal support award and other arrears.

The applicant, who was self-represented, argued that garnishing his modest income, derived solely from these benefits due to severe psychological conditions and unemployment, would be severely prejudicial.

The court, applying equitable principles to garnishment, considered the applicant's near-poverty living conditions against the respondent's comfortable lifestyle and significant wealth.

While acknowledging that CPP benefits are partially garnishable for support orders, and ODSP payments are generally exempt unless enforced by the Family Responsibility Office, the court exercised its discretion to set aside all notices of garnishment, finding it inequitable to deprive the applicant of his sole means of support.

The applicant sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a successful application to appoint a receiver in aid of execution.

The applicant argued that an earlier decision ordered costs of enforcement proceedings on a solicitor and client basis.

The court disagreed, finding the respondent took a reasonable legal position, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000.

The court also rejected the applicant's proposed Commercial Court model receivership order, finding it overly complex for a simple receivership involving a modest debt and a single asset (a jointly owned home), and instead signed a simplified judgment.

The applicant sought the appointment of an equitable receiver to enforce costs orders totalling approximately $113,000 against the respondent.

The respondent's only known asset was an unencumbered home jointly owned with his wife.

After four unsuccessful attempts to sell the respondent's interest through the Sheriff, and the respondent's fraudulent attempt to defeat the sale, the applicant exhausted all ordinary legal remedies.

The court found the criteria for equitable execution were met and appointed a receiver with the power to commence proceedings under the Partition Act for the sale of the jointly-owned property.