George Florentis

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against her brother, his wife, and their two corporations for the repayment of a loan funded through her personal line of credit.

The defendants argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding the terms of the loan and whether the personal defendants were liable.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the documentary evidence established the loan was for the benefit of all defendants, had a one-year term, and was acknowledged by the defendants.

Summary judgment was granted against all defendants in the amount of $155,322.82.

In a criminal prosecution involving allegations of sexual assault against a child, the Crown sought to admit similar act evidence from a prior trial in which the accused had recently been convicted of comparable sexual offences involving another young complainant.

The defence argued the application should not proceed until appellate rights relating to the earlier conviction were exhausted and challenged the evidentiary basis for the application.

The court rejected the preliminary objection and held that the prior conviction and the trial judge’s reasons were admissible evidence on the similar fact voir dire.

Applying the governing principles from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court concluded that the similarities between the alleged acts—including the age of the complainants, the nature of the sexual acts, and the familial relationship—were highly probative and significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The similar act evidence was therefore admitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a child who was between four and six years old at the time of the alleged incidents.

The complainant described three incidents involving fellatio and digital penetration occurring at a park, a bedroom, and a bathroom while the accused lived with her mother.

The accused denied the allegations and suggested a third-party suspect, but the court rejected that theory after reviewing the evidence.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D), the court found the accused’s evidence inconsistent and implausible and accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible and reliable.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences.