Drew S. Gunsolus

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice by persuading a fellow inmate to fabricate evidence for an appeal of prior convictions.

The Crown relied on letters purportedly written by the accused to the inmate.

The defence argued the inmate fabricated the letters to gain favour and applied for a stay of proceedings due to the loss of original letter exhibits from a previous trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused authored the letters, based on handwriting analysis and the minute details only the accused could know.

The court denied the stay application, finding no unacceptable negligence in the loss of originals and no actual prejudice to the defence, as authenticated photocopies and other evidence were available for a fair trial.

The plaintiff's action for $25 million in damages was dismissed in full against all defendants.

This endorsement addresses the defendants' claims for costs.

The court found the plaintiff's principal, Mr. Lagani, engaged in blameworthy conduct, including misleading the court, intimidating witnesses, and making unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The court declined to award costs against Mr. Lagani personally due to lack of jurisdiction and insufficient notice.

The court also rejected the Berczy Group's claim for equitable set-off against funds owed to the plaintiff, stating set-off cannot be used as a "sword" to proactively claim funds.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to all defendants.

This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants' initial application was converted to an action, which they subsequently did not pursue.

The respondents sought costs for the motion.

The court determined that the applicants were not public interest litigants, as their claims were personal and pecuniary.

Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay partial costs to the various respondents, reflecting the respondents' ultimate success in concluding the litigation, albeit not on the exact grounds initially pleaded.

The accused, Jesse Thomson, faced charges including possession of cocaine for trafficking and various firearm offences.

The trial included a blended voir dire to determine the admissibility of his statements to police and evidence obtained from a vehicle search.

The court found Thomson's statements voluntary and that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were not violated, justifying the admission of evidence.

The police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and search based on reliable informant tips and corroborating surveillance.

Ultimately, the Crown proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilt on all counts.

The plaintiff, catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits in the form of retrospective attendant care benefits for a period between 2001 and 2006.

The motion asked the court to determine the date from which interest should accrue if those benefits were ultimately found to be payable.

The insurer argued interest could only begin after it received a Form 1 assessment of attendant care needs, relying on appellate authority interpreting the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The court held that under the applicable 2001 version of the Schedule, interest begins when the insurer had sufficient information to assess entitlement to the benefit, even absent a formal Form 1.

On the facts, the insurer had early knowledge of the claimant’s catastrophic impairments and attendant care needs.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He had been found asleep in the driver’s seat of a parked vehicle with the engine running while waiting for a designated driver.

The appeal court held the trial judge misapplied the legal test for care or control by treating the accused’s decision to sleep while waiting as undermining his safety plan.

Applying the principles in R. v. Boudreault and related authorities, the court found there was insufficient evidence of a realistic risk that the accused would set the vehicle in motion or change his intention to drive.

The trial judge’s reasoning improperly criminalized the use of the vehicle for a manifestly innocent purpose.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rules 26.02(b) and 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add an individual as a defendant after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The claim arose from a letter allegedly authored by the proposed defendant accusing the plaintiffs of criminal conduct and demanding their resignation from a religious organization.

The plaintiffs argued they only discovered the individual’s potential liability after the limitation period when the corporate defendant denied responsibility for the conduct of the local council.

The court held that the evidentiary threshold for discoverability at the amendment stage is low and that the plaintiffs had provided a reasonable explanation showing a triable issue regarding due diligence.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was granted with leave for the added defendant to plead a limitations defence.

The appellant sought leave to appeal convictions and sentence arising from allegations that he spat blood on correctional officers during a prison disturbance and uttered a death threat to one officer.

The appeal judge held that the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles from W.D. regarding the assessment of an accused’s evidence and provided inadequate reasons linking accepted facts to the essential elements of assault.

In particular, the reasons did not address whether the spitting was intentional or explain the reliability of the complainants’ evidence in chaotic circumstances.

The conviction for uttering a threat was upheld, but the assault convictions were set aside due to insufficient reasons and improper credibility analysis.

A new trial was ordered on the assault counts.

Following an order dismissing both the action and the counterclaim for delay, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs and disbursements.

The plaintiffs argued that portions of the claimed fees resulted in double compensation for the same court appearance and that the hours claimed were excessive.

The court accepted that costs should follow the event but reduced the amount claimed in light of the circumstances and the parties’ shared responsibility for delay.

Partial indemnity costs and reduced disbursements were awarded to the defendant.

An estate trustee sought the court’s advice and direction regarding the distribution of a lapsed residuary gift where a named beneficiary predeceased the testator.

The issue was whether the 25% share should pass on intestacy to distant next of kin identified through genealogical research or instead be redistributed among the surviving named residuary beneficiaries.

Applying principles of will interpretation, including the “armchair rule” and the presumption favouring testacy over intestacy, the court examined the testator’s relationships and intentions at the time the will was made.

The evidence demonstrated that the testator had meaningful relationships only with the named beneficiaries and believed she had no living relatives.

The court found a contrary intention in the will and ordered the lapsed share to be distributed proportionately among the surviving residuary beneficiaries.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside service and stay an Ontario action arising from a trip and fall accident that occurred in a retail store in New York State.

The court considered whether Ontario had jurisdiction over the foreign defendant using the real and substantial connection test and whether Ontario should decline jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Applying the framework from Van Breda, the court found significant connections between the plaintiffs’ claim and Ontario, including residency, damages, and treatment occurring in the province, as well as sufficient connection between Ontario and the defendant due to its participation in an international retail organization and cross‑border advertising through its website.

The court also concluded that Ontario remained the appropriate forum because most witnesses and evidence were located in Ontario and proceeding there would not be unfair to the defendant.

The motion to stay the proceedings was dismissed.