George Bajrang Roop Jr Singh

The applicants were wholly successful in an application regarding the control of a non-profit organization.

They sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted the respondents' unjustified delays, failure to respond to settlement offers, and improper conduct in locking the applicants out of corporate accounts.

The court rejected the respondent's argument of inability to pay and awarded the applicants costs fixed at $45,000 all-inclusive.

The appellant, Casey Matti Henry, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The central issue at trial was consent.

The appeal raised three grounds: (i) the trial judge erred in dismissing an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding the complainant's prior sexual activity; (ii) there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the trial judge due to frequent interventions; and (iii) the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no error in the s. 276 application dismissal, no substantiation of judicial bias, and no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility findings.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's decision was entitled to deference and no errors in principle were found.

The applicants, co-founders of a not-for-profit organization, sought declarations and orders against the primary respondent and others for corporate governance breaches and misappropriation of corporate property.

The primary respondent unilaterally declared herself president, installed a new board, and locked the applicants out of corporate accounts, claiming the organization and its assets were part of her PhD study.

The court found the respondent breached corporate legislation, improperly removed directors, and misappropriated corporate property.

The court ordered the return of all corporate property and accounts to the organization and permanently enjoined the primary respondent from holding herself out as president, director, or member, or from using the organization for funding applications or making website changes.

The applicant, James Jahkyn Grant, sought release pending his appeal from a conviction for importing cocaine.

The Crown opposed on grounds of the proposed appeal's lack of merit, the applicant's likelihood of not surrendering into custody, and public interest considerations.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his appeal was not frivolous, that he would surrender into custody, or that his detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The court noted the seriousness of the offence and the applicant's history of non-compliance and challenging court authority.

The applicant, convicted of firearms and drug offences and sentenced to 38 months' incarceration, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Crown conceded the first two grounds for bail but argued detention was necessary in the public interest due to public safety concerns and weak grounds of appeal.

The court found the applicant did not pose a substantial risk to public safety, noting his lack of prior record, compliance with pre-trial bail, and the circumstantial nature of the constructive possession case against him.

The court concluded the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and granted bail pending appeal with a strict perfection deadline.

The accused Ashley Perry and Christian Walters were charged with unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm, two over-capacity magazines, and cocaine following a police search warrant executed at their apartment.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The court found that while the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Perry had knowledge and control of the contraband items, it could establish that Walters had such knowledge, either because he placed the items himself or was informed of their location by his brother or an associate.

Perry was acquitted on all counts; Walters was convicted.

The appellant appealed her son's expulsion from school by the respondent school board.

The student was expelled for allegedly committing a sexual assault against another student in the school library.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a hearing de novo to determine if the incident occurred.

Assessing the credibility of the complainant and the student, the Board found the complainant's evidence inconsistent and contradicted by her own social media messages.

The Board concluded the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the sexual assault occurred, quashed the expulsion, and ordered the student's record expunged.

The Crown brought a motion to quash an appeal of a section 11(b) Charter order.

At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the respondent advised that the trial was scheduled for July 29, 2019, and abandoned the appeal at that time.

The Crown withdrew its motion to quash.

The appeal and motion were both dismissed as abandoned, with the understanding that the respondent was not precluded from raising the same issue on a future appeal after trial.