Evan Thomas

Thomas Patrick Sliwinski pleaded guilty to manslaughter, unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and pointing a firearm.

The charges stemmed from a campaign of intimidation and violence against a civil litigation lawyer, Lisa Carr, including an attempted shooting, and involvement in the fatal shooting of Soheil Rafipour.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society given the planned nature of the crimes, their impact on victims, and the attack on the administration of justice.

Clifford Campsall pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his girlfriend, Shelby Goldhar, whom he strangled and partially dismembered.

The court considered aggravating factors including the domestic nature of the homicide, the victim's vulnerabilities, the offender's prior assault conviction against the victim, and the indignity to the body.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, youthfulness, intellectual disability, and family support.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, including additional credit for difficult conditions of incarceration (lockdowns, triple bunking, and COVID-19 pandemic stress).

In a certified class action by franchisees against Shoppers Drug Mart regarding the retention of professional allowances, the plaintiffs brought a discovery motion seeking to compel answers to refused questions, to examine three non-party former employees, and to obtain documentary production from two non-party generic drug manufacturers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had already provided sufficient information to allow the plaintiffs to argue their case, and that further discovery would be irrelevant and disproportionate.

The court ordered a limited search for documents related to 'over and above' amounts but otherwise denied the relief sought.

The Applicants sought a hearing and review of a decision by the Director of the Ontario Securities Commission refusing to issue a receipt for The Bitcoin Fund's prospectus.

The Director had refused the receipt on the grounds that bitcoin is an illiquid asset under NI 81-102 and that issuing the receipt was not in the public interest due to concerns about valuation, safeguarding of assets, and auditability.

The Commission set aside the Director's decision, finding that Staff failed to prove bitcoin is an illiquid asset given the evidence of substantial trading volumes on regulated exchanges.

The Commission also found that the Applicants had taken reasonable steps to mitigate operational risks through the fund's static buy-and-hold structure, the use of a regulated index for valuation, and the engagement of professional custodians and auditors.

The Director was ordered to issue a receipt for the prospectus.

The Fund brought a motion seeking payment of $1 million in deferred proceeds under a share purchase agreement and a declaration that Newbury's removal of the general partner of a limited partnership contravened a CCAA stay order.

The court granted the order for deferred proceeds, interpreting the agreement's clear language and factual matrix to mean payment was contingent only on the absence of Canadian Exit Tax, not on profit or loss from the sale of securities.

The court dismissed the request regarding the stay order, finding it did not extend to the general partner or partnership.

Costs were awarded to the Fund.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to state a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

The court struck out the fresh as amended statement of claim, finding that the claims (breach of privacy, trespass, conspiracy) were legally deficient, particularly due to absolute privilege for statements made in legal proceedings and a lack of material facts.

The court further found the action to be an abuse of process, largely driven by a non-lawyer, Gary Curtis, who had a history of vexatious litigation against the defendant.

Leave to amend the claim was denied, and the action was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the defendant due to the reprehensible conduct of the litigation.

The appellant, found guilty of assault and mischief, appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The appeal was based on two grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the trial judge's refusal to reopen the hearing to allow the appellant to testify.

The court applied the test for ineffective assistance of counsel from R. v. Archer and R. v. G.D.B., finding that counsel competently advised the appellant regarding the risks and benefits of testifying, including potential perjury and bail breaches.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision not to reopen the case, noting that the appellant's change of mind was a reversal of an earlier tactical decision, which did not warrant disrupting the orderly conduct of the trial.

Both grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The defendant was convicted of assault following a trial on April 24, 2018.

The assault occurred on April 24, 2017, when the defendant pushed an 82-year-old complainant into a pond at a public park without provocation.

The complainant was not physically injured but suffered psychological harm.

The defendant had a lengthy criminal record but no prior convictions for violence.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 4-6 months jail plus probation, while the defence sought a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first four months, followed by a curfew, combined with an 18-month probation order with additional requirements including anger management and alcohol abuse treatment, community service, and a DNA order.

The appellant appealed from orders of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing its action for delay and awarding costs to the respondents.

The action, commenced in 2005 for negligent engineering work on natural gas turbines, had been dormant since 2009 following a successful appeal of a summary judgment dismissal.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 24.01 to dismiss for delay and recover costs.

The appellant argued that Rule 48.14, which mandates automatic dismissal of actions five or more years old without trial, should have applied without costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and costs award, finding that Rule 24.01 and Rule 48.14 operate concurrently with no hierarchy between them, and that the court retained jurisdiction to award costs under Rule 24.01 despite Rule 48.14's silence on costs.

Sapient Canada Inc. appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to Atos (successor to Siemens) for wrongful termination of a subcontract involving data conversion and application management support services for an Enbridge software implementation project.

Sapient sought to reduce damages from $6,291,680 to $1,510,738.89, arguing the trial judge erred in: (1) failing to apply the minimum performance principle from Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd.; (2) misinterpreting the termination for convenience formula; and (3) misinterpreting a limitation of liability clause.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in failing to apply the minimum performance principle to data conversion services damages, reducing the award by $1,344,275 to $4,947,405.

The court upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the termination for convenience formula and the limitation of liability clause.

Costs were remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued the defendants should not receive costs due to their delay in bringing the motion to dismiss.

The court held the defendants were entitled to costs, but only on a partial indemnity basis, as the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Given the lengthy delay and the fact that the judges who dealt with the merits had retired, the court found exceptional circumstances warranted referring the costs for assessment rather than fixing them.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, which alleged negligent engineering in the construction of a cogeneration station, had been dormant for several years following a successful appeal by the plaintiff in 2009.

The court found the delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the defendants, as several potential witnesses were no longer available.

The court dismissed the action for delay and confirmed its authority to award costs, directing the parties to provide further submissions on the costs issue.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a class action certification decision concerning alleged price-fixing of colour display tubes.

The motion for leave to appeal raised three main issues: whether an unlawful means conspiracy claim could be based on the Competition Act, whether "umbrella purchasers" had a viable cause of action, and whether the methodology for establishing class-wide harm met the "credible and plausible" standard.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of umbrella purchasers due to conflicting jurisprudence and concerns about indeterminate liability, but denied leave on the other two issues, finding the certification judge applied the correct test for common issues and that the Competition Act is not a complete code precluding common law claims.

Commercial List trial arising from the wrongful termination of a subcontract in a large SAP IS-U implementation project.

The court held that the prime contractor wrongfully terminated the subcontract for cause, because alleged deficiencies in data conversion, reconciliation, and AMS did not amount to material incurable breaches and, in any event, earlier breaches had been affirmed.

The court further held that delay to Go-Live was multi-causal and could not be attributed solely to the subcontractor, with project management failures by the prime contractor bearing overall responsibility.

Lost profits for the AMS portion were recoverable because the limitation clause did not exclude direct expectation damages under the subcontract.

The plaintiff recovered substantial damages, while the defendant succeeded only in part on a limited counterclaim for specific breaches, unpaid invoices, and a contractual late-delivery penalty.

The moving party (respondent on appeal) brought a motion for security for costs against the responding party (appellant), an insolvent representative plaintiff in a class action.

The moving party sought over $5.3 million for trial and appeal costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had delayed significantly in bringing the motion, having known of the responding party's insolvency since 2012 but choosing not to seek security for tactical reasons.

This delay prejudiced the responding party by depriving it of the opportunity to seek funding from the Class Proceedings Fund and by allowing it to perfect its appeal at great expense.

The court also noted concerns about considering class members' assets when determining a representative plaintiff's impecuniosity.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of cathode ray tubes (CDTs) and colour picture tubes (CPTs).

The plaintiff asserted causes of action under the Competition Act and for common law unlawful means conspiracy, including claims on behalf of umbrella purchasers.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The applicant, a minority shareholder, sought standing to bring an application under section 127 of the Securities Act to delay a special meeting and require corrective disclosure in a management information circular regarding a related party transaction.

The respondent brought a motion to deny standing.

The Commission granted the motion and denied standing, finding that the application raised no novel issues, the alleged disclosure deficiencies had already been widely debated in the market, and intervening at a late stage would unduly interfere with the justified expectations of market participants.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief to private property relating to an altercation with the victim, as well as two counts of breach of probation.

The trial involved a three-day hearing with evidence from the victim, the accused, and a third party witness.

The court found the accused guilty on all charges after rejecting the accused's self-defence claim.

The court determined that the accused had armed himself with a kitchen knife in anticipation of the victim's return to the house and used it disproportionately against an unarmed opponent.

The court found the accused's post-offence conduct—breaking the knife and hiding the blade in a toilet tank—demonstrated consciousness of guilt and knowledge that his actions were unlawful.

The plaintiff moved for a Mareva injunction to freeze approximately $1.1 million held in a custody account belonging to the defendant, alleging the funds were mistakenly paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation for an improper purpose, or irreparable harm.

The defendant's intention to withdraw the funds was deemed a legitimate part of its corporate wind-down process.

In this certified franchise class action arising from the 2009 automotive restructuring, the representative plaintiff alleged that the franchisor breached statutory duties of fair dealing, disclosure, and association when it issued wind-down agreements to affected dealers on short notice, and also alleged that class counsel acted in conflict and failed to protect the dealers' interests.

The court held that the franchisor did not breach its obligations under the Arthur Wishart Act or analogous provincial legislation, found the wind-down release enforceable as a settlement of existing and fully known claims, and dismissed the claim against the franchisor as well as the franchisor's counterclaim.

The court further held that the law firm retained for the dealer group had in fact entered into a solicitor-client relationship with the contributing dealers, that its retainer extended to pre-filing restructuring issues, and that it breached fiduciary, contractual, and tort duties by acting despite an undisclosed conflict with Industry Canada, failing to address the steering committee's internal conflict, and maintaining an unreasonable wait-and-see approach.

Applying a loss-of-chance analysis, the court found that the class lost a real and significant opportunity to negotiate collectively for higher wind-down payments and awarded aggregate damages of $45 million against the law firm.