Edwards

The defendant was found guilty of several firearms and drug offences by a trial judge who provided brief oral reasons and promised written reasons to follow.

The trial judge subsequently retired without providing the written reasons.

Furthermore, the trial judge recorded convictions for seven counts, despite the defendant only being arraigned on five.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the brief oral reasons were insufficient to allow another judge to impose sentence under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code.

Given the lack of reasons, the unarraigned convictions, and the resulting miscarriage of justice, the court granted the motion and declared a mistrial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's Statement of Defense due to the defendant's failure to pay an $11,000 costs award previously ordered by a Master.

The defendant sought to amend the Master's order to make the costs payable in any event of the cause, citing impecuniosity.

The court declined to amend the Master's unappealed order, noting insufficient evidence of the defendant's inability to obtain financing.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the costs by November 1, 2021, failing which her Statement of Defense would be struck.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to the nonpayment of previous costs awards totaling $25,700.

On the eve of the hearing, the parties settled the motion, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.

The plaintiff sought costs of approximately $15,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for $2,500 to $3,500.

The court found the motion was unnecessary and caused by the defendants' failure to pay prior awards, but reduced the plaintiff's claimed hours for an articling student.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff was previously found in civil contempt of court.

Following the dismissal of his appeal and a delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the court held a penalty hearing.

Noting that the plaintiff was a repeat offender who had previously been fined for contempt, but declining to order incarceration during the pandemic, the court imposed a fine of $3,000 to address both specific and general deterrence.

The offender, a 64-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of sexually assaulting his former partner by forcing anal intercourse.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a suspended sentence due to the offender's life-threatening C. difficile infection.

The court found that while a 22-month sentence would normally be fit, the offender's unique and severe medical condition meant incarceration would seriously compromise his life.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, including strict house arrest conditions to protect the public from infection.

The accused, a registered confidential informant, was charged with serious drug offences after receiving a package containing illicit drugs via a controlled delivery.

The accused testified they did not know the package contained drugs and had attempted to contact their police handler about their suspicions.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the Crown failed to prove knowledge or wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt.

Alternatively, the court granted a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, finding the police committed an egregious abuse of process by breaching informer privilege, involving the accused's handlers in the arrest, and releasing the accused into a dangerous situation to further the investigation.

The intervener insurer brought a motion to determine whether it could deny coverage based on an Excluded Driver Endorsement signed by the defendant driver.

The court found that the form used by the insurer was not the standard form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services, as it failed to list the specific vehicles to which the exclusion applied.

Furthermore, the insurer failed to prove it had delivered a copy of the endorsement to the insured upon renewal.

The court held the insurer could not rely on the unapproved form and is obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant.

The defendant brought a motion arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims regarding a trust and an Ontario condominium, or alternatively, that Michigan was the more appropriate forum.

The defendant also sought security for costs.

The court found it had jurisdiction because the trust property and alleged breach of fiduciary duty occurred in Ontario.

The court declined to stay the action for forum non conveniens, finding Michigan was not clearly more appropriate.

The request for security for costs was dismissed due to the defendant's delay in bringing the motion.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding the purchase of a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am, which he alleged was misrepresented as an original vehicle from the television program 'Knight Rider'.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding this representation and whether it induced the purchase.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the standard of review for findings of fact and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant did not solely rely on the respondent's representations and had conducted his own due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed.