Eleonore L. Morris

The three accused were charged with kidnapping, assault, and uttering threats against the complainant, who was suspected of having information about a high-profile missing person case.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the complainant, who was struggling with severe drug addiction at the time of the events.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies, illogical claims, and memory gaps, rendering her not credible.

As the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, all three accused were acquitted.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and substance use disorders, had several notable incidents of substance use and unauthorized absences in the past year.

Relying on uncontroverted expert psychiatric evidence, the Board found the accused continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of a Detention Order but amended the privileges to allow the accused to live in accommodation approved by the person in charge, rather than strictly supervised accommodation, to encourage gradual reintegration.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's disposition following a finding of not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The parties jointly recommended a continuation of the Detention Order with a new travel pass to Northern Ontario.

During the hearing, the hospital requested that the community living clause be changed from 'supervised accommodation' to 'approved accommodation'.

The Board rejected this late request, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and requires supervised accommodation, but granted the travel pass subject to prior approval.

W.S., a 20-year-old with significant mental health issues, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found her incapable of managing property.

The Board's finding was based on her inability to appreciate the foreseeable consequences of acquiring alcohol, leading to self-harm.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the Board committed an error of law by characterizing the decision to acquire alcohol as a decision in property management without other evidence of property management issues, and that the physician's assertion of W.S. "repeatedly running out of money" was uncorroborated.

The court emphasized that capacity to manage property must relate to financial matters, not solely to control behavior unrelated to property.

The Board's finding of incapacity was set aside.

The plaintiffs sought leave to extend the time for service of their statement of claim almost two years after the deadline.

The action alleged breach of a 1993 agreement regarding timber harvesting buffer zones.

The Crown argued the action was a nullity for failure to provide notice under s. 7 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

The court found the plaintiffs' prior correspondence did not constitute proper notice to the Crown.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice caused by the delay in service.

The motion was dismissed and the action against both defendants was dismissed.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for an incapable beneficiary, brought an application to compel the estate trustee to pass the estate accounts.

The beneficiary had signed a release and received her share of the estate, but was assessed as incapable less than three months later.

The court applied section 2(4) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, finding that the estate trustee failed to prove she did not have reasonable grounds to believe the beneficiary was incapable when the release was signed.

The application was granted and the estate trustee was ordered to pass the accounts.

In a court‑appointed receivership over payroll service companies, the receiver sought a declaration that a customer breached the stay provision of the receivership order by recalling funds previously transferred through a pre‑authorized debit.

The funds had already been deposited into the debtor’s consolidated account prior to the receivership order but were later reversed after the customer learned of the receivership.

The court held that once deposited, the funds constituted “Property” of the debtor within the meaning of the receivership order, even if intended for payroll.

By requesting reimbursement through its bank after receiving notice of the receivership, the customer exercised a remedy affecting the debtor’s property and breached the stay.

The court ordered repayment of the funds to the receiver with interest, while allowing the customer to prove a claim in the receivership distribution.

A hog supplier sought an order terminating the 30‑day period for an insolvent company to file a proposal under s. 50.4(11) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or, alternatively, the appointment of a receiver over the debtor’s inventory under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party argued the debtor acted in bad faith by accepting livestock deliveries shortly before filing a notice of intention to make a proposal and that creditors would be prejudiced because farmers would otherwise be unable to claim the statutory priority for agricultural suppliers under BIA s. 81.2.

The court held the evidence did not establish lack of good faith, inability to make a viable proposal, inability to obtain creditor approval, or material prejudice to creditors as a whole.

The court further held it would be inappropriate to appoint a receiver solely to trigger the statutory farmer priority scheme where Parliament had chosen not to extend that priority to NOI proceedings.

The appellant, who purchased a portion of the bankrupt company's business, appealed the Trustee's disallowance of various claims totaling over $3 million.

The claims sought reimbursement of expenses and damages allegedly resulting from misrepresentations in unaudited internal financial statements provided prior to the sale.

The court upheld the Trustee's disallowance, finding that the Asset Purchase Agreement contained 'as is, where is' and entire agreement clauses, and that the claims were barred by res judicata due to prior court orders approving the sale and discharging the Chief Restructuring Officer.

The appeal was dismissed.