Fragomeni

During a trial for importing cocaine, the Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from a detective regarding drug paraphernalia and cash seized from the accused's residence.

The defence objected, arguing the evidence was irrelevant and constituted prejudicial bad character evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice ruled the evidence admissible, finding that tools of the drug trade are logically relevant to the charge of importing large quantities of cocaine, as importers typically do so for distribution.

The court concluded the evidence was highly probative and its admission would not lead to improper propensity reasoning.

The applicant sought to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence seized from his residence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading information and material non-disclosure.

The Crown alleged the applicant was the primary overseer for three shipments of cocaine intercepted at Pearson International Airport.

The reviewing judge applied the Garofoli standard, excising erroneous information and assessing the totality of the remaining evidence.

The court concluded that despite some omissions, the issuing justice could have found reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain a search warrant for his residence in a drug importation case.

The applicant argued there was no reasonable basis to believe evidence would be found at his residence and sought to cross-examine on surveillance, misrepresentations, lack of connection to the residence, and travel patterns.

Applying the Garofoli test, the court found the applicant established a reasonable likelihood that limited cross-examination would elicit testimony of probative value.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on specific, restricted areas identified by the applicant.

The accused were charged with multiple counts of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada from Trinidad and Grenada.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of couriers, fingerprint evidence on the seized suitcases, and circumstantial evidence including travel records and items seized from Guthrie's home.

The court found the couriers' testimony to be unreliable and fraught with inconsistencies.

The court also found the fingerprint and circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the loss of police search videos and photos.

Both accused were found not guilty on all counts.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The wife sought damages for assault and battery, and for invasion of privacy after discovering the husband had surreptitiously installed a hidden camera in their bedroom and bathroom.

The court awarded the wife $5,000 for assault and battery and $15,000 for intrusion upon seclusion.

The court also ordered the wife to pay an equalization payment of $14,916.57 to the husband, finding no grounds for an unequal division.

The husband was ordered to pay $5,600 in retroactive spousal support and ongoing support of $700 per month for two additional months before termination.

The applicant wife sought spousal support, a declaration that her deceased father-in-law's house was a matrimonial home, and a quantum meruit claim against his estate for caregiving services.

The court found the house was not a matrimonial home because the parties separated before the husband inherited it.

The quantum meruit claim was dismissed because the wife had secretly used the father-in-law's funds to support a severe gambling addiction, which more than compensated her.

Spousal support was ordered to continue for two years to allow the wife, who suffered from PTSD after a workplace robbery, to seek full-time employment.

The husband was found in contempt for failing to notify the wife's solicitor of a property sale and fined $2,500.

The respondent husband brought a motion seeking various deductions from the applicant wife's share of the proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home, including claims for household contents, an abandoned vehicle, utility bills, and an alleged loan.

The wife argued the husband had no standing to bring the motion as he had failed to file an answer in the proceeding.

The court agreed, finding the husband had no standing under the Family Law Rules.

In the alternative, the court reviewed the merits of the husband's claims and dismissed them entirely due to a lack of evidentiary support.

The net proceeds of the sale were ordered to be divided equally.

The husband brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate spousal support, wipe out arrears, regain control of his life insurance policy, and remove the wife from his health benefits following his retirement from full-time employment.

The court found his retirement constituted a material change in circumstances but declined to terminate support, instead reducing it to $400 per month.

The court fixed the arrears at nil, allowed the husband to regain control of his life insurance upon reimbursing the wife $499.99, and ordered that the wife remain on his health benefits.

The plaintiff's representative refused to proceed with an examination for discovery because the defendant brought two corporate representatives, including the president's wife, which the plaintiff found intimidating.

The plaintiff moved for an order limiting the defendant to one representative at the examination.

The court granted the motion, holding that the onus is on the party seeking to have multiple representatives present to establish necessity, which the defendant failed to do.

The applicants brought a motion regarding the respondent estate trustee's alleged failure to comply with a previous court order.

The court found that the respondent's responding affidavit, sworn by a paralegal, did not adequately address the concerns raised by the applicants.

The court ordered the respondent to serve and file a further affidavit with supporting documentary evidence and adjourned the motion to allow for a complete evidentiary record before determining the substantive relief requested.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for divorce, spousal support, and property equalization, arguing that their religious marriage ceremony was legally invalid because no marriage licence was obtained.

The wife argued she entered the marriage in good faith, intending to comply with the Marriage Act, and relied on the husband's representation that a licence could be obtained later.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding that the conflicting factual assertions regarding the validity of the marriage and the parties' intentions created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant husband brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring him to pay $8,500 per month in temporary spousal support and to obtain an income valuation.

The court granted leave to appeal on two issues: whether the motions judge erred in averaging the husband's income over three years instead of using his most recent line 150 income, and whether the motions judge erred by ordering an income valuation when neither party had requested such relief.

The court found both issues raised reasons to doubt the correctness of the order and involved matters of general importance.

A request to stay the support order pending appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's appeal regarding a credit against child support arrears, both parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $5,793.03, while the respondent sought $9,434.35 or no costs, arguing that the applicant's actions delayed settlement.

The court applied the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs under Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules.

After considering the factors in Rule 24(11) and prior attendances, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $4,000.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid amounts on a home renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages due to construction deficiencies, failure to follow design, delay, and fraudulent misrepresentation by the contractor's principal.

The court found that the contract was a fixed-price agreement and disallowed many of the contractor's claims for extras.

The court awarded damages to the homeowners for the contractor's failure to follow the agreed-upon design, delay costs, and structural repairs.

Furthermore, the court pierced the corporate veil, finding the contractor's principal personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentations that induced the homeowners to enter into the contract.

Judgment was issued in favour of the homeowners for $42,832.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a workplace accident where the plaintiff truck driver suffered a severe leg fracture while using an electrical pallet jack at the defendant's premises.

The action proceeded as an undefended trial against the defendant Grocery Dayton, who failed to file a Statement of Defence.

Liability was deemed admitted under Rule 25.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court assessed damages based on the plaintiff's evidence and filed reports, awarding $125,000 in general damages, $799,100 for future economic loss, $26,100 for future care costs, and $30,000 for the spouse's Family Law Act claim, totaling $980,200.

Following a long motion in a family law proceeding where success was divided, the court considered the costs submissions of the parties.

The applicant wife was more successful overall, having secured interim spousal support and protective orders regarding property, though the respondents succeeded on the sale of the home and dismissing a motion to strike pleadings.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as there was no bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The accused, on trial for second-degree murder, brought an application to exclude several documents seized by police from an abandoned apartment he formerly occupied.

The documents included a probation order, letters from a girlfriend, drawings depicting a gun, and a driver's licence suspension notice.

The Crown sought to introduce the documents to negate the accused's claim of self-defence and innocent purpose.

The court allowed the application and excluded the documents, finding they lacked relevance and probative value, and that their prejudicial effect far outweighed any potential probative value.

The defence applied to exclude evidence of the accused's post-offence conduct, specifically his flight from police nine months after the alleged homicide.

The defence argued the evidence was more prejudicial than probative.

The court dismissed the application, finding the evidence relevant and probative to the issue of whether the accused committed a culpable homicide and did not act in self-defence.

The court held that the jury should be allowed to weigh the evidence with appropriate instructions.

The accused brought a Corbett application seeking to edit his criminal record before testifying before the jury.

He requested that a prior robbery conviction be referred to as a theft and that a conviction for flight from police be excluded.

The court granted the application, finding that admitting the robbery conviction carried a serious risk of impermissible propensity reasoning given the factual matrix of the current charges.

The court also excluded the flight from police conviction, noting it was not a crime of dishonesty and its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value, particularly since the Crown intended to lead after-the-fact conduct evidence of the accused fleeing police upon arrest.

The Crown appealed a 90-day intermittent sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual interference involving a 15-year-old victim.

The respondent had digitally penetrated the sleeping victim and forced her to manually stimulate him.

The summary conviction appeal court found the original sentence was demonstrably unfit and failed to adequately reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the egregious nature of the assault and the breach of trust.

However, because the respondent had already completed the intermittent sentence, was employed full-time, and supported his family, the court declined to re-incarcerate him and dismissed the appeal.