G. J. Smith

The accused, Allan Clayton Eggleton, was charged with 17 counts related to drug trafficking (fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine), possession of proceeds of crime, and various firearms and weapons offences.

The Crown presented evidence from police surveillance, a search warrant execution at the accused's alleged residence, and expert testimony on drug trafficking and weapons.

The accused testified, denying residence at the apartment where items were found and providing an explanation for the cash seized.

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding residence and the source of the cash, finding his explanations inconsistent and implausible.

Based on the totality of the evidence, including surveillance, seized items, and expert testimony, the court found the accused guilty on all 17 counts, concluding that he was in possession of the drugs, firearms, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia for the purpose of trafficking, and that the cash was proceeds of crime.

The defendant, Brandon Wisdom, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The complainant alleged that Mr. Wisdom sexually assaulted her while she was sleeping at a high school house party.

The central issue was credibility and consent, with the defence arguing the sexual activity was consensual and the complainant's evidence unreliable due to intoxication.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, rejecting the defendant's testimony as contradicted and implausible.

The court concluded that the complainant was sexually assaulted while asleep and that the Crown proved the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a conviction for sexual assault.

This endorsement concerns the costs arising from successful summary judgment motions brought by Eaton Industries (Canada) Company and The Corporation of The City of London against Albert Bloom Limited (ABL).

The motions dismissed ABL's claims as statute-barred.

ABL conceded entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, alleging duplication and excessiveness, particularly given Eaton's prior cost award in a related third-party motion.

The court found the claimed costs reasonable, noting the significance of the litigation, Eaton's efforts to avoid duplication, and ABL's failure to disclose its own costs for comparison.

The defendant, Logan Cloer, was tried on charges of impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

He sought a stay of proceedings under sections 7 and 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the arresting officer assaulted him after his arrest.

The court found that the defendant's Charter rights were violated due to the officer's impulsive and inappropriate use of force.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, deeming it a disproportionate remedy given the minor injury and the officer's conduct not being as egregious as in other cited cases.

Instead, the court imposed a reduced sentence, finding the defendant guilty of the offences, fining him one dollar, and ordering a one-year driving prohibition.

Walsh Construction Company Canada (WCC) brought a motion to compel the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to produce approximately 1,600 documents over which TTC claimed litigation privilege.

The court applied the "dominant purpose" test for litigation privilege, conducting a contextual analysis of when litigation was reasonably contemplated and whether the documents were created primarily for litigation or for other purposes such as contractual claims review, project completion, or budget management.

The court found that while litigation was anticipated, many documents served multiple purposes, and TTC failed to establish dominant litigation purpose for a significant portion of the disputed documents.

The court ordered the production of most documents, with specific exceptions for those genuinely created for the dominant purpose of litigation or solicitor-client privilege, and provided directions for redactions.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm to one individual and aggravated assault against another, arising from a parking lot altercation outside a bar in Niagara Falls on February 22, 2017.

The Crown alleged the defendant punched both complainants during a melee involving multiple individuals.

The defendant denied punching the first complainant and claimed he struck the second complainant in self-defence while being attacked from behind.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the bodily harm to the first complainant, and that the evidence supported the defendant's claim of self-defence regarding the second complainant.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while her blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit, contrary to sections 253.1(a) and 253.1(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence raised a Charter application challenging whether provincial offence officers were acting as peace officers and whether there were breaches of the right to counsel and the "as soon as practicable" requirement for breath sample demands.

The court found that the provincial offence officers were not peace officers for Charter purposes, that there was no breach of the right to counsel, and that the breath sample demand was made as soon as practicable.

The court convicted the accused on both charges based on the totality of evidence demonstrating impairment.

The applicant, Kevin Morris, sought a stay of proceedings for firearm offences, alleging violations of his Charter rights under ss. 7, 9, and 10.

The court found no s. 9 violation regarding arbitrary detention or arrest, as police had reasonable grounds to arrest after the applicant fled.

A s. 7 violation was found due to D.C. Moorcroft's careless driving that struck the applicant, but not for excessive force by P.C. Faduck during the arrest.

A s. 10(b) violation occurred when P.C. Keefer questioned the applicant after he asserted his right to counsel, though the delay in accessing counsel was deemed reasonable due to medical needs.

Despite the Charter violations, the court dismissed the stay application, finding the violations were not egregious enough to warrant a stay, and a sentence reduction would be a more appropriate remedy.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown obtained breath samples showing readings of 137 and 131 milligrams respectively.

The defence challenged the validity of the breath demands and the qualification of the breath technician.

The court found that the initial approved screening device demand lacked any stated legal basis and that the subsequent approved instrument demand was also improper, as the officer failed to establish the requisite reasonable grounds to believe.

The court excluded the breath test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that the long-term interests of the administration of justice favoured exclusion despite the reliability of the evidence and the seriousness of the offence.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused sought to appear by agent (a non-lawyer, non-licensed paralegal) in a summary conviction proceeding for obstructing a peace officer.

The Crown opposed the application on the basis that the agent was neither a lawyer nor a licensed paralegal.

The court considered whether the agent could appear and whether permission should be granted.

The court found that sections 800 and 802 of the Criminal Code permit agents who are not lawyers to represent accused in summary criminal proceedings, subject to the limitations in section 802.1.

Since the maximum sentence was six months imprisonment, the agent was permitted to appear.

The court confirmed that the accused's choice of representation was informed and that no conflict of interest existed that would warrant disqualification of the agent.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a minor between October 28, 2010 and March 1, 2012, assault of the minor, assault of her new boyfriend, and threatening to kill the boyfriend.

The accused was 20-22 years old during the sexual relationship with the 13-15 year old complainant.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months imprisonment on the sexual interference count, with consecutive sentences of 10 days each on the assault and death threat counts, followed by 15 months probation.

The court applied principles of denunciation and general deterrence while considering the accused's youth, guilty plea, and rehabilitation prospects.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident on October 25, 2010.

The complainant, a 28-year-old woman with mental health conditions, alleged that the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with her without consent after she repeatedly said "no" to his advances.

The accused, a 43-year-old man with schizophrenia, claimed the complainant acquiesced to sexual activity.

The court found the accused guilty, accepting the complainant's evidence that she did not consent and rejecting the accused's testimony as inconsistent with his police admissions.

The judgment provides comprehensive analysis of the actus reus and mens rea elements of sexual assault, including the requirement for affirmative communication of consent and the rejection of the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent based on silence or ambiguous conduct.

Two aboriginal offenders were sentenced following guilty pleas to serious offences.

The first offender pleaded guilty to possession of stolen motor vehicles, operating vehicles while disqualified, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm in commission of an indictable offence.

The second offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to stop for police pursuit causing bodily harm.

The court applied Gladue principles regarding sentencing of aboriginal offenders while emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the seriousness of the offences and prior criminal records.