Elizabeth Moore

Timothy Knight was charged with three counts of domestic assault.

The complainant, Ms. Rigato, was the sole witness.

The defence argued Ms. Rigato had a motive to fabricate due to an impending custody dispute.

The court found Ms. Rigato to be a truthful and thoughtful witness, accepting her uncontradicted evidence that she reported the assaults because they occurred, not to gain a family law advantage.

While minor inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony did not undermine her credibility, the court had a reasonable doubt regarding the first alleged assault (a push in bed) due to its context.

Knight was found not guilty of the first assault but guilty of the second and third assaults.

The accused was charged with first degree murder following the discovery of the victim's body, which had been severely beaten and bound with coaxial cable.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video showing the accused as the last person with the victim, DNA evidence on the bindings, a bloody palm print, and after-the-fact conduct.

The accused provided an exculpatory statement to police, which the court rejected as fabricated.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator, that he had the requisite intent for murder despite evidence of intoxication, and that the murder occurred during an unlawful confinement.

The accused was found guilty of first degree murder.

The accused, P.H., was charged with two counts of sexual assault.

The defence argued the sexual activity was consensual, while the complainant alleged force.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable and lacking credibility due to inconsistencies, evasiveness, and confusing answers, which persisted despite the provision of interpreters.

The judge noted that while stereotypical assumptions about sexual assault victims' behaviour are prohibited, the complainant's explanations for her actions and statements were often implausible and untruthful.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found not guilty.

Ala Al Safi pleaded guilty to ten counts of aggravated sexual assault or attempted aggravated sexual assault and breaching a recognizance condition related to his HIV status and sexual encounters.

The court imposed a ten-year sentence, reduced by enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, and declared him a Long-Term Offender, imposing a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order with specific conditions aimed at public safety and rehabilitation, particularly regarding HIV disclosure and medication adherence.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

However, the court found several periods of delay were attributable to the defence, including time taken to retain counsel, scheduling conflicts for a joint preliminary hearing, and a late request for disclosure that delayed committal.

After deducting the defence delay, the remaining delay for both applicants fell below the 30-month ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

This decision addresses a blended voir dire in a sexual assault case, concerning the admissibility of the accused's statements to police and applications for a stay of proceedings due to pre-charge and post-charge delay.

The court found the accused was psychologically detained during his first statement, which was procured through deception and selective disclosure, leading to its exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Applications for a stay of proceedings based on s. 7 and s. 11(b) Charter rights were dismissed, as the delay was deemed reasonable and no actual prejudice to a fair trial was established.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 operation) following a roadside stop on the Don Valley Parkway.

The Crown relied on breath test results from both an Approved Screening Device (ASD) administered at the roadside and an approved instrument administered at Traffic Services.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the stop and the timing of both breath tests, alleging Charter violations under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The trial judge found that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the defendant had consumed alcohol, that the ASD test was administered "forthwith" despite a nine-minute delay in obtaining the device, and that the approved instrument test was administered "as soon as practicable" in compliance with the Criminal Code.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant, Steven Venditello, brought an application under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay fraud charges due to unreasonable delay.

The court found that the extensive delay of over seven years was primarily attributable to the defendant's deliberate and manipulative actions regarding legal representation and scheduling.

Applying the framework from R. v. Jordan and R. v. Coulter, the court calculated the net delay, after subtracting defence-attributable delay and an extraordinary circumstance, to be well below the 30-month threshold.

The application was dismissed, as the defendant failed to demonstrate that the remaining delay was unreasonable.

The accused, a project manager on a balcony restoration project, was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after a swing stage collapsed, causing five workers to fall 100 feet.

The court found that the accused had the authority to direct the workers and breached his duty under s. 217.1 of the Criminal Code by permitting six workers to board the swing stage when he knew there were only two lifelines available.

The court held that this failure constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable supervisor, showing wanton and reckless disregard for the workers' lives and safety.

The accused's negligence was found to be a significant contributing cause of the deaths and injuries, and he was found guilty on all counts.

In a criminal negligence trial arising from a fatal swing stage collapse, the court considered whether the Crown could tender selected pre-trial statements by the accused without introducing a later video-recorded interview.

Applying the entire statement rule, the court held that fairness required the second statement and the third statement to be treated together because the Crown sought to use the second statement as an admission of negligence, while the third contained the accused's fuller explanation of his supervisory duties.

The first statement, however, was limited to the accused's identification of himself as a supervisor and did not require the later interview to be admitted for fairness.

The Crown could therefore adduce the first statement alone, but not the second without the third.

The accused, a project supervisor for a construction company, was charged with criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm following the collapse of a swing stage on December 24, 2009, at a Toronto construction site.

Five workers fell 13 stories to their deaths, one suffered debilitating injuries, and one survived because he was tied to a lifeline.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial based primarily on his failure to ensure that workers were properly tied to lifelines while working on the suspended platform, despite clear regulatory requirements and training standards.

Ardagh PLC, an unsuccessful bidder in a court-approved sale process under the CCAA, sought leave to appeal the order approving the sale of Consumers Packaging Inc.'s assets to Owens-Illinois, Inc. The Court of Appeal refused leave, noting that leave to appeal in CCAA proceedings should be granted sparingly and not where it would prejudice the restructuring.

The court also noted that an unsuccessful bidder generally lacks standing to challenge a sale approval order.

The plaintiffs in two class actions moved to quash appeals brought by the defendants from an order declaring that the plaintiffs shared a common interest with the Receiver of YBM, and that the Receiver could produce a report to them without waiving privilege.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was procedural and interlocutory, as it did not resolve any substantive issue in the proceedings.

The court rejected the argument that the order was final simply because it involved a non-party (the Receiver), distinguishing prior case law.

The motions to quash were granted.

The appellant police officer appealed the penalty imposed following his guilty plea to discreditable conduct for an off-duty impaired driving conviction.

The officer, an admitted alcoholic who had since sought treatment, was reduced in rank to Fourth Class Constable (High) for six months.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of drinking and driving offences and the change in public attitude, while acknowledging the officer's rehabilitative efforts and potential as mitigating factors.