G. Gill

Darren Pennock pleaded guilty to fraud, breach of trust, and uttering forged documents involving the misappropriation of $327,045 from the John Howard Society of Peel over seven years while serving as CEO.

The court considered aggravating factors including the breach of trust, repeated and calculated deceit, and significant impact on a vulnerable community served by the charity.

Mitigating factors included Pennock’s guilty plea and restitution made by a second mortgage on his home.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence, and sentenced Pennock to 12 months’ jail plus three years’ probation with specific conditions.

This is a sentencing decision for S.D.C., who was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference involving his 7-year-old daughter.

The sexual assault conviction was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's young age, the offender's position of trust, and the victim's vulnerability, and mitigating factors such as the offender's work history and commitment to parenting.

Emphasizing the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in R. v. Friesen regarding the gravity of child sexual offences, the court rejected the defence's reliance on older precedents.

The offender was sentenced to two years less a day of detention, followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including DNA, firearms prohibition, non-communication, SOIRA registration, and a 5-year s. 161 prohibition.

The accused, S.D.C., was tried without a jury on one count of sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) and one count of touching for a sexual purpose (s. 151 Criminal Code) involving his daughter, S. The case hinged on credibility assessments of the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) analysis.

The court found the accused's evidence illogical and not credible, rejecting his denial.

The complainant's evidence, despite minor inconsistencies and her being half-asleep, was found credible and reliable, corroborated by the accused's own statements.

The Crown proved the elements of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilt on both counts.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding interim parenting issues for their 6-year-old child, including school enrollment, afterschool care, summer camps, and health decision-making.

The father sought to change the child's school to Mineola Public School, while the mother sought to keep the child at Owenwood Public School.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify varying the previous interim order regarding schooling.

The court also ordered the father to un-enroll the child from afterschool care at Mineola, as the mother had final decision-making authority for daycare.

The court split the summer camp schedule between the parents' choices and set exchange times for non-school days.

The matter was directed to a trial management conference.

The defendant, H.K., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a person under 16.

The defence argued that a second alleged meeting between the defendant and the complainant, during which the assault purportedly occurred, did not happen.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the second meeting inconsistent and unreliable, particularly concerning the absence of corroborating text messages she claimed existed.

Due to these significant discrepancies, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant of all charges.

This endorsement arises from a case conference in a complex action involving TD Bank and numerous insurance underwriters.

The court addressed the management of three pending discovery motions (defendants' refusals, plaintiff's refusals, and defendants' motion for a second discovery representative) and trial management issues.

The court declined the plaintiff's request to expand their refusals motion, permitted the plaintiff to withdraw their existing refusals motion without prejudice, and vacated the scheduled trial date of September 13, 2021, as the action was not ready.

The court provided specific case management directions for completing discoveries, updating motion materials, and preparing for a future trial date.

The plaintiff brought an action against his former employee and her company for repayment of an alleged oral loan used to lease a commercial truck.

The defendants argued the funds were a gift or, alternatively, loaned to the corporation rather than the individual defendant.

The court assessed the credibility of the parties and concluded the funds were a loan made personally to the individual defendant.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the amount of $34,459, representing the proven advances, plus 5% interest pursuant to the Interest Act.

In an insurance coverage action, the parties brought three motions regarding discovery refusals and the examination of a second discovery representative.

The judge determined that the motions were within the jurisdiction of a Master and, pursuant to the Toronto Region Consolidated Practice Direction, transferred the motions to a Master for determination.

The judge also ordered a case conference to address procedural deficiencies and ensure the orderly development of the motions for hearing.

This decision concerns a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code for an accused facing multiple firearms-related charges, including unauthorized possession, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession with serial number removed, possessing in contravention of a prohibition order, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The accused had been in pre-trial custody for 18 months.

The court conducted a de novo bail hearing, with the onus on the accused to show cause why detention was not justified.

The court assessed the secondary ground (public safety) and tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice), considering the accused's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, the strength of the Crown's circumstantial case, and the proposed surety's release plan.

The court found the accused failed to demonstrate that detention was unjustified on either ground, concluding that the release plan was inadequate and that release would undermine public confidence, despite the pre-trial custody duration not yet exceeding a likely sentence.

This high-conflict family law case involved a dispute over parenting arrangements for a 10-year-old child and spousal support.

The applicant mother alleged sexual assault by the respondent father and sought no contact, while the father denied the allegations and sought to continue sole custody with expanded parenting time for the mother.

The court found the sexual assault allegations unproven and concluded that the parties' acrimony precluded co-parenting.

Sole custody was granted to the father, with a graduated expansion of the mother's parenting time.

Spousal support was awarded to the mother for a fixed period, with income imputed to her due to intentional unemployment.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive amount of alcohol in his blood following a single-vehicle accident near Simcoe, Ontario.

The accused alleged that police violated his section 8 Charter rights by videotaping him using toilet facilities while in police custody without providing adequate privacy protections.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights were breached on two occasions when he used the toilet at the police station.

Although the police had a policy of providing privacy gowns to detainees, the implementation of this policy was inadequate.

The court applied the Grant test and determined that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's privacy and dignity outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The breath sample analysis results were excluded as evidence, and the charge was dismissed.

The accused, Parveen Sharma, was charged with two counts of sexual assault.

The complainant, a 25-year-old tenant of the accused, alleged non-consensual sexual activity on October 2 and 3, 2015.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, considering inconsistencies and corroborating factors.

The defence argued the complainant initiated sexual activity and consented.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting defence arguments regarding inconsistencies and the complainant's alleged initiation of a sexual relationship.

The accused was found guilty on both counts of sexual assault.

The defendant was charged with driving dangerously, failing to remain and provide particulars following a motor vehicle collision, impaired operation of a motor vehicle, and driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The defendant brought Charter applications seeking to exclude evidence for violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded that two constitutional violations occurred: arbitrary detention and failure to immediately inform of the right to counsel.

The court found a section 8 Charter violation regarding an unlawful search of the defendant's garage but rejected the section 9 and 10(b) violation claims.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded only the defendant's brief confession made outside the garage, while admitting all other evidence.

The Crown brought an application under section 486.1(2) of the Criminal Code to permit a complainant witness to have a support dog present while testifying in a serious sexual offence trial.

The defence opposed, arguing the witness, now 21, did not "need" the dog, despite being 16 at the time of the offence.

The court, interpreting the amended statutory threshold of "facilitate" rather than "necessary," considered factors including the witness's age at the time of the offence, the nature of the offence, reported mental health issues (anxiety and depression), and observed distress during preparation.

The court also determined that the human handler of the support dog qualified as a "support person of the witness' choice." Finding that the support dog would likely facilitate the witness in giving a full and candid account, the application was granted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on a blended basis addressing both the merits and a Charter application.

The defence alleged a section 8 Charter violation arising from police monitoring of the accused while she used the toilet on two occasions while in short-term police custody.

The Crown obtained breath samples of 160 and 143 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The trial judge found a serious section 8 violation and excluded the breath sample evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with failing to provide a roadside breath sample into an approved screening device (ASD) at a R.I.D.E. spot-check.

The defendant claimed he was unable to provide the sample due to panic attacks that had remained undiagnosed until after the charge was laid.

The Crown proved the actus reus and mens rea of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's defence of reasonable excuse failed because medical evidence did not establish any respiratory impairment, and mere physical discomfort does not constitute a reasonable excuse under the law.

The defendant was found guilty.

This is a costs endorsement following several motions in complex insurance litigation between TD Bank and its fidelity insurers, primarily concerning a successful partial summary judgment motion by TD Bank.

The court addressed the administrative issue of simplifying the style of cause and then considered the principles for awarding costs, emphasizing the "culture shift" towards efficient litigation.

The court confirmed costs in the cause for an earlier production motion and awarded TD Bank $330,000 in all-inclusive costs for the motion for directions and the partial summary judgment motion, to be paid jointly and severally by the defendant insurers, allocated pro rata to their policy exposure.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that losses it sustained due to an employee's participation in a Ponzi scheme constituted a 'direct financial loss' under its fidelity bond.

The bank had settled multiple third-party claims after victims transferred funds to the bank based on fraudulent representations by the bank's employee.

The court held that the bank received the funds subject to a constructive trust, and suffered a direct financial loss when those funds were credited to unrestricted accounts controlled by the fraudster.

The court found this narrow issue of policy interpretation appropriate for partial summary judgment and granted the declaration.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b).

The Crown called five witnesses including two paramedics who observed erratic driving, the arresting officer, a second officer, and a breath technician.

The defendant conceded the over 80 charge but contested the impaired driving charge.

The court found both charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on cumulative evidence including observations of erratic driving, near-accident involvement, physical signs of impairment, and breath test results.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay in trial.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and over 80 contrary to the Criminal Code.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months from charge to anticipated end of trial in provincial court.

The overall delay was calculated at 18 months and 21 days, but after deducting approximately 3 months and 8 days of defence delay, the net delay was 15 months and 13 days, falling below the ceiling.

The court found the defence had not demonstrated meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case had not taken markedly longer than reasonably required.

The application was dismissed.