George Tsimiklis

The Crown brought a pretrial motion to permit the complainant and a nurse to testify remotely by videoconference under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defence opposed the complainant testifying virtually, arguing it would impede cross-examination and the assessment of credibility.

The court granted the motion, finding that virtual testimony would reduce COVID-19 transmission risks and could actually enhance the assessment of demeanour compared to an in-person trial with masks and plexiglass.

The defence's subsequent application for an adjournment to allow for a future in-person trial was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike previously entered guilty pleas for trafficking in cocaine and common assault.

He asserted the pleas were not voluntary because he maintained his innocence and felt pressured by defence counsel to accept a negotiated resolution.

Evidence showed counsel did not conduct a proper plea comprehension review and advised the applicant to answer the court’s plea inquiry questions affirmatively to ensure acceptance of the plea.

The court held that a valid guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed under s. 606 of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the applicant never admitted guilt and entered the plea under improper circumstances, the court concluded the plea was involuntary and constituted a fraud on the court.

The pleas were struck and the matter ordered to proceed to trial on all counts.

Following dismissal of an action seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement of purchase and sale for land, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs throughout or alternatively after a formal offer to settle.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs require reprehensible conduct and were not justified, even where the defendant had made a Rule 49 offer and the action was later dismissed.

Applying Rule 57.01 factors and considering the litigation conduct and proportionality of the amounts claimed, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with reductions for excessive legal work while allowing expert report disbursements incurred in response to anticipated expert evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE program stop on Highway 404.

The Crown alleged the accused attempted to back up the ramp to avoid the checkpoint.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on observations of impairment including odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, red face, swaying gait, and admission of consuming four drinks.

However, the court acquitted on the impaired driving charge due to reasonable doubt regarding the degree of impairment, finding the breath test evidence admissible but the impairment charge not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario finding that it had permitted drunkenness on its premises contrary to s. 45(1) of Regulation 719 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board erred in law by concluding the appellant permitted drunkenness without any evidence of how long the patron had been in an intoxicated state, which was necessary to determine if the appellant failed to remove the patron within a reasonable period of time.

The appellant sought to overturn a decision of the Vice-Chair of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission refusing to adjourn scheduled hearings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an appeal lies only from a final decision of the Board, not an interlocutory decision refusing an adjournment.

The court also noted that even if treated as an application for judicial review, it would be premature.