Goldstein

The Attorney General of Canada applied under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to send a cell phone and forensic search results to the United States for a murder investigation.

The respondent, who was arrested in Canada for an immigration violation, argued that his Charter rights were breached because the search exceeded the warrant's time limit and scope, and he was not properly informed of his right to counsel.

The court found no breach regarding the timing of the search or the right to counsel, but held that extracting the web browser history violated s. 8 of the Charter as the warrant was limited to communications.

The court allowed the application in part, ordering the phone and communications to be sent, but excluding the web browser history.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce ante-mortem statements made by the deceased to demonstrate his state of mind and the accused's motive to kill.

The defence objected to the viva voce evidence of five witnesses and a Facebook thread, arguing they failed the test of necessity and were not material to motive.

The court ruled the statements admissible, finding they fell under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and were not introduced for the truth of their contents.

The court also held the statements were material to establishing motive and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, subject to minor redactions.

The plaintiff successfully sued the defendant for defamation and obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant from communicating about him.

The defendant breached the injunction by communicating with a Member of Parliament, claiming it was an act of conscience, and was found in civil contempt.

The court sentenced the defendant to a 90-day conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by 18 months' probation and 200 hours of community service, finding that jail was not necessary.

The defendant was also ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs of $24,377.41.

The offender was convicted of carrying a loaded handgun in downtown Toronto.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to six years, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of three years.

The court considered the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts as mitigating factors, and the carrying of a loaded weapon in public and breaches of bail as aggravating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to four years' imprisonment and declined to make a DNA order.

The Minister of Finance appealed a master's decision dismissing a motion to renew a writ of execution against an uninsured motorist who had filed a consumer proposal.

The motorist's driver's licence had been subject to suspension under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act for failing to pay a judgment debt arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding an operational conflict between the provincial legislation and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court held that the provincial scheme was effectively a debt collection mechanism that subverted the federal bankruptcy scheme and the 'fresh start' principle, rendering the provincial provision inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.

The applicant, a failed refugee claimant from Sri Lanka, sought an emergency interim injunction in the Superior Court of Justice to stay his removal after the Federal Court dismissed a similar application earlier the same day.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that it should defer to the Federal Court, which has primary jurisdiction over immigration matters and provides an effective remedy.

The court also found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm to meet the test for an injunction.

The plaintiff company, controlled by the defendant's former business partner, voluntarily paid off a bank line of credit owed by their jointly owned business.

The bank had not made a formal demand for payment.

The plaintiff then obtained an assignment of the defendant's personal guarantee from the bank and sued the defendant for his share.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff acted as a volunteer and that there was no legal compulsion or reasonable necessity to pay the debt, disentitling the plaintiff from claiming indemnification under the guarantee.

The Law Society of Upper Canada sought an injunction to prevent the respondent from practicing law or holding himself out as a lawyer.

The respondent operated McGuire Law Corporation and provided legal services in estates, divorce, and immigration matters, claiming he was acting as a clergyman assisting his congregants.

The court found the respondent was practicing law for profit and holding himself out as a lawyer, contrary to s. 26.1 of the Law Society Act.

The court granted the statutory injunction and awarded costs to the applicant.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract and misrepresentation arising from a franchise agreement.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as statute-barred.

Before discoveries took place, the plaintiff moved to strike the summary judgment motion on the grounds of prematurity.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, applying the test that such a motion should only be granted in the clearest of cases.

The court found that the summary judgment motion had a reasonable chance of success and the matter was not overly complicated.

The plaintiffs were defrauded of $1.3 million by a promoter who instructed them to deposit funds into a law firm's trust account.

The funds were subsequently disbursed on the promoter's instructions.

The plaintiffs sued the law firm and the responsible lawyer for negligence and breach of trust.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lawyers owed no duty of care to the non-client plaintiffs, as there was no proximity and the plaintiffs' reliance was not reasonable.

The court also found no fiduciary duty existed.