Erik Van Drunen

This decision concerns the sentencing of Nicholas Ditoro for luring a child, contrary to s. 172.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, where the Crown proceeded summarily, triggering a 6-month mandatory minimum sentence.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of this mandatory minimum under s. 12 of the Charter, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The court applied the two-step test from R. v. Nur and considered the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen regarding the gravity of sexual offences against children.

The court found that while the 6-month mandatory minimum was harsh for a youthful first offender with mitigating circumstances, it was not "grossly disproportionate" to the fit sentence, nor would it be in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios, given the serious nature of child luring and Parliament's intent to impose tougher sanctions.

The s. 12 Charter application was dismissed, and the mandatory minimum sentence was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The plaintiff brought a motion in Small Claims Court seeking to add a corporate party as a defendant or to substitute the named individual defendant with the corporation after the limitation period had expired.

The court considered when the limitation period began in the context of a production contract where payment depended on invoicing.

Applying authority holding that a cause of action arises after a reasonable time to issue and pay an invoice, the court determined the limitation period began after reasonable periods for invoicing and payment had elapsed.

The court further held that the amendment sought was not merely correction of a misnomer but the addition of a new party after expiry of the limitation period.

As the plaintiff had notice of the correct party before the limitation period expired but failed to bring a timely motion, the amendment could not be granted.