G. Black

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing death and bodily harm after her vehicle lost control on Highway 407, crossed the median, and collided with an oncoming vehicle.

The Crown alleged the defendant drove without due care and attention.

The defence argued the accident was caused by the front-seat passenger abruptly pulling the steering wheel during an argument, supported by hearsay statements the passenger made to a third party admitting he 'pulled the wheel'.

The court found the Crown failed to prove careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt, as the passenger interference theory raised a reasonable doubt and no other evidence of erratic driving or mechanical failure was established.

The defendant was acquitted.

The Receiver of a deceased personal injury lawyer's professional corporation brought a motion seeking to impose a 'Sliding Fee Structure' on new counsel who took over the deceased lawyer's client files.

The Receiver argued this was necessary to efficiently realize on the estate's interest in the files.

The court dismissed the request to impose the fee structure, finding it would inappropriately override the clients' statutory rights under the Solicitors Act to receive and assess a bill.

However, the court ordered new counsel to provide the Receiver with 'Determinable Information' about the files to assist the Receiver in rendering accounts, subject to a privilege protocol.

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing bodily harm and death after a fatal motor vehicle accident.

During the trial, the defence sought to introduce hearsay statements made by a passenger to an acquaintance, in which the passenger admitted to pulling the steering wheel and causing the accident.

The Crown opposed the admission of the statements.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay and found that the statements met the threshold for necessity and reliability.

The court ruled the hearsay statements admissible for the truth of their contents.

The accused stood trial on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from alleged intrafamilial abuse of a child complainant over an extended period in the family home.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence on material issues, accepted the complainant as credible and reliable, and found that delayed and incremental disclosure did not undermine her credibility in the circumstances.

The court also relied on supporting evidence from other witnesses that undermined the accused's account, including evidence concerning family dynamics, controlling behaviour, and the complainant's refusal to use the home theatre.

Convictions were entered on all counts.

The applicant, Dirk Plate, sought an order to be tried separately from his co-accused, Paul Caron, on charges of fraud and theft arising from an alleged $20 million kickback scheme.

The Crown alleged a common criminal enterprise, invoking the Carter rule for the admissibility of evidence.

The court balanced the factors under the interests of justice test, including the truth-seeking function, judicial economy, and potential prejudice.

The court found that a joint trial was the best way to assess witness credibility and avoid inconsistent findings, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate a real likelihood of injustice if tried jointly.

The application for severance was dismissed.

The moving defendants sought to set aside a noting in default and dismiss or stay an Ontario action arising from a motor vehicle collision in Pennsylvania on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Pennsylvania was the more appropriate forum.

Applying the framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that a real and substantial connection existed because one alleged joint tortfeasor was resident in Ontario and the plaintiff claimed inseparable damages against multiple defendants.

The court further held that the moving defendants failed to demonstrate that Pennsylvania was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, particularly given that most witnesses and the plaintiff’s damages evidence were located in Ontario.

The motions to dismiss or stay the action were therefore dismissed, although the noting in default against the moving defendants was set aside on consent.