Frederick E. Leitch

The 80-year-old accused was convicted of sexual interference involving a 9-year-old victim whom he tutored.

The Crown sought 12 months in jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court noted the accused's severe medical issues and the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in a custodial setting.

Applying the recent decision in R. v. Sharma, which struck down the prohibition on conditional sentences for offences with a 14-year maximum penalty, the court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, finding that incarceration would likely be a death sentence for the accused.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the production of a reporting letter sent by the defendants' former solicitor regarding an asset sale transaction.

The plaintiffs claimed the letter was relevant to prove the existence of a $250,000 promissory note, which the defendants denied existed.

The defendants opposed production on the grounds of relevance and solicitor-client privilege.

The court found the letter relevant to the plaintiffs' claim and held that statements of fact within the letter regarding the delivery of the note were not protected by privilege.

The court ordered the letter to be produced to the court in a sealed envelope for redaction of any privileged legal advice before disclosure.

The respondent, in his personal capacity and as estate trustee, moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims by his siblings (the applicants) regarding nine Arizona properties.

The respondent argued the claims were statute-barred, subject to res judicata, or did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that res judicata did not apply as the issues were not determined in a prior passing of accounts, and the limitation periods under the Trustee Act or Limitations Act, 2002 did not apply to notices of objection in a passing of accounts application.

The court also found that the respondent failed to account for inter vivos gifts of property, raising factual and legal questions requiring a trial.

The defendant, Jonathan Hugill, was charged with theft under $5,000, three counts of fraud over $5,000, and three counts of uttering forged documents, all related to cheques belonging to his brother, Jason Hugill.

The central issue was whether Jason had authorized Jonathan to take, fill out, and sign the cheques.

The court found Jonathan's testimony to be unreliable and noted inconsistencies in Jason's evidence regarding when he discovered the alleged unauthorized cheques.

Due to a reasonable doubt as to whether Jason had given consent or authorization, the court acquitted Jonathan on all charges.

The appellant challenged the validity of two wills executed by her deceased husband on the grounds that he lacked testamentary capacity due to chronic alcoholism.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the testator possessed testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of his wills.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in excluding expert evidence and in finding that the testator had capacity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable or overriding error.

The court held that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion as gatekeeper in excluding the expert evidence, which had become increasingly tentative and speculative.

The court also found that the trial judge properly applied the framework for assessing will validity, including the displaced presumption triggered by suspicious circumstances relating to the testator's mental capacity.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the ownership of two Mexican condominiums purchased with funds contributed by both spouses.

The appellant claimed he held title to the properties through company shares on resulting trust for the wife in respect of half their value, seeking this arrangement because the properties had declined in value since separation, which would benefit him in the equalization calculation.

The trial judge rejected the resulting trust claim, finding the presumption had been rebutted based on all the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant transferred two cottage properties to his former common law spouse and later claimed she held them in trust for him.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no written trust declaration, insufficient evidence of an express oral trust, and that the claim was barred by the parties' cohabitation agreement.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the cohabitation agreement and failing to find a trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's interpretation of the agreement was correct and entitled to deference, and that the evidence did not establish a trust.

The plaintiff challenged the validity of her late husband's 2009 corporate and personal wills, arguing he lacked testamentary capacity due to organic brain disease caused by chronic alcoholism.

The deceased had left his entire estate, consisting primarily of a 50% interest in a farm corporation, to his brother and business partner.

The court found that while the plaintiff established suspicious circumstances due to the deceased's alcoholism, the propounder of the wills successfully proved the deceased met the test for testamentary capacity.

The wills were declared valid and remitted to probate.

This is a cost endorsement following a summary judgment motion where the defendants largely succeeded in dismissing most of the plaintiff's claims.

The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $34,995.66.

The plaintiff proposed a lower amount of $13,135.66.

The court awarded the defendants costs of the summary judgment motion on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $27,000.00, payable within 90 days.

The court rejected the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff, and also denied their request to preclude the plaintiff from taking further steps in the litigation pending payment, noting the plaintiff's ongoing entitlement to an accounting of farm profits.

The plaintiff brought an action against her nephew and his wife, claiming a proprietary constructive trust and equitable mortgage over a farm property based on an oral agreement with her late brother to reimburse her for renovation expenses.

The defendants, who inherited the property subject to the plaintiff's life estate, moved for summary judgment.

The court found that while the plaintiff had an enforceable equitable claim against her late brother, the defendants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

The court dismissed the claims for a constructive trust, equitable mortgage, and partition and sale, but allowed the plaintiff's claim for an accounting of farm profits based on her life estate to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff brought an action against the estate of his deceased former common-law partner, seeking a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of two cottage properties registered in her name.

The parties had executed a cohabitation agreement in 1993 that established a separate property regime.

In 2010, the plaintiff directed that the properties be transferred into the deceased's name.

He alleged that she held them in trust for him, but no written declaration of trust was ever signed.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a trust on a balance of probabilities, noting conflicts in the evidence and the application of the Statute of Frauds.

The action was dismissed.

Following an appeal judgment, the successful appellant sought costs against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the costs be recoverable against both respondents jointly and severally, as they shared a community of interest in the appeal and filed a joint factum.

The plaintiff sued his former solicitor for negligence after the solicitor failed to include a due on sale clause in a vendor take back mortgage.

The plaintiff's former spouse, who co-owned the mortgage, refused to join the action and was added as a defendant.

She counterclaimed against the plaintiff for occupation rent of their former matrimonial home.

The trial judge found the solicitor negligent and awarded damages to both the plaintiff and his former spouse, while also ordering the plaintiff to pay occupation rent and extinguishing judgment debts he had purchased against her.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the negligence finding but ruled the solicitor was only liable to the plaintiff for his half of the damages, as the former spouse had not sued him.

The Court also upheld the occupation rent award but reversed the extinguishment of the assigned judgment debts, allowing the plaintiff to enforce them.

The applicant was injured in two separate motor vehicle accidents.

Following the second accident, the insurer paid weekly income benefits under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule but later terminated them, claiming an overpayment and arguing the applicant should have been classified under section 13 as unemployed.

The arbitrator found the applicant retained his status as a self-employed person at the time of the second accident, qualifying him under section 12.

However, because he earned no income in the 52 weeks preceding the second accident, his benefits were calculated at the minimum rate of $185.60 per week.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment of the overpaid amount under section 27(1), finding the error was not attributable to the applicant but to the insurer's failure to make reasonable inquiries.

The applicant was awarded expenses.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after using excessive corporal punishment on his son, who suffered from severe behavioural issues.

He was subsequently charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and ordered to resign or be dismissed.

On appeal, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission considered the officer's 14-year unblemished record, his sincere efforts to manage a difficult child, and the exceptional circumstances of the case.

The Commission concluded that dismissal was too severe and reduced the penalty to a reduction in rank for 12 months.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions and penalties from two separate disciplinary trials.

In the first trial, he was reduced in rank for neglect of duty after failing to meet performance appraisal objectives over a twelve-month period.

The Commission found the objectives were reasonable and did not constitute an illegal order.

In the second trial, he was ordered to resign or be dismissed for neglect of duty and deceit related to failing to follow up on an investigation and falsely reporting its status to dispose of evidence.

The Commission dismissed both appeals, upholding the convictions and penalties.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his alleged association with a known criminal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the charge sheet was sufficiently particularized and the evidence established an association between the appellant and the individual, the prosecution failed to prove that the individual was a 'known criminal' at the relevant time.

The Commission held that the appellant's failure to run a CPIC check did not amount to wilful blindness.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and penalty were quashed.