Himel

The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of robbery, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and failure to comply with a release order following a string of 16 convenience store robberies committed over four hours.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 7 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court considered the offender's background, including anti-Black racism and mental health issues, alongside the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun and robbery offences.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, with enhanced credit granted for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to frequent lockdowns, leaving 633 days to serve.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and five counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm after driving at high speeds through a red light in downtown Toronto while intoxicated.

The collision killed one pedestrian and severely injured five others.

The court sentenced the accused to 8 years' imprisonment for the death and 4 years concurrent for the bodily harm counts, minus 1,135 days of enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions.

A 12-year driving prohibition was also imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and failing to comply with a recognizance.

While on bail for other firearms offences, the accused posted a picture of a handgun on a web forum, leading to a police search of his residence.

During the search, he discarded a loaded handgun from an 11th-floor balcony.

The court considered the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, balanced against mitigating factors including the accused's youth, guilty plea, and the impact of systemic racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years, reduced by enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh jail conditions, leaving 430 days to serve.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a 7-year global sentence, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the large quantities of highly addictive drugs and the offender's prior related record while on parole.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, reduced to 4 years and 4 months after applying credits for pre-sentence custody, harsh lockdown conditions, and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused, charged with child pornography offences and breach of a conditional sentence, applied for release on a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties, house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court found that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention were met, given the accused's significant criminal record for similar offences, the substantial likelihood of reoffending, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was dismissed and continued detention was ordered.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found 200 grams of cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia in a safe in his bedroom.

The offender was a 24-year-old first-time offender who had complied with bail conditions and made significant rehabilitative efforts, including completing his electrician apprenticeship.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, finding that exceptional mitigating circumstances warranted a sentence outside the usual range, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the child's school enrollment, which was decided in favour of the respondent.

The parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The court found that while the respondent was successful, both parties had engaged in unreasonable conduct.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 in favour of the respondent, but ordered that this amount be set off against $8,000 in costs that the respondent already owed to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion to enroll the parties' six-year-old child in a French Immersion program in Mississauga, contrary to the respondent mother's choice of a public school in North York.

The parties shared joint custody under a previous order which gave the mother final decision-making authority over education if they could not agree.

The court found that the mother's proposed school was in the child's best interests, noting the child's speech delays, the mother's proximity to the school, and the availability of before and after school care.

The father's motion regarding the choice of school was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a range of 12 to 15 months' imprisonment consecutive to a sentence the accused was already serving.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal heritage, the mitigating factor of his guilty plea, and the harsh effects of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 months' imprisonment consecutive to his current sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a forfeiture order.

The applicant, facing robbery and firearms charges, sought an adjournment of his trial scheduled for January 4, 2021.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a provincial lockdown, the Chief Justice directed that non-jury matters proceed virtually unless an in-person hearing was absolutely necessary.

The applicant opposed a virtual trial, citing difficulties with his living situation, his counsel's childcare issues, and potential custody issues, and offered to waive his s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that in the specific circumstances, the applicant's right to a fair trial warranted an in-person hearing.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought an application under ss. 8, 9, 10(b) and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence found in a satchel when he was arrested.

The court found that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him based on a confidential informant tip and ambiguous surveillance, resulting in a s. 9 breach.

The subsequent search of his person and satchel was therefore unlawful, breaching s. 8.

The police also delayed implementing his right to counsel for over four hours, breaching s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2).

The parties, who shared joint custody of their nine-year-old child, disagreed on whether the child should attend school in person or online during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for in-person attendance, while the respondent father sought online learning due to health risks.

The court found that the provincial government was in a better position to assess school attendance risks and that there was no unacceptable risk of harm to the child or either household.

The court ordered that the child be registered for and attend school in person, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for criminal harassment.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant based on two text messages sent consecutively to the complainant, finding they constituted 'repeated communication'.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that two text messages sent at the same time constitute a single communication, not repeated communication.

The court also found the trial judge's conclusions that the complainant was harassed and that her fear was objectively reasonable were unreasonable, given the lack of threats and the context of the messages.

The conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a single-car collision on Highway 401.

The accused, driving a friend's car, approached another vehicle at a high rate of speed and made a sudden lane change to avoid a collision, losing control and striking the guardrails.

The passenger suffered significant injuries including a broken kneecap and concussion.

The court rejected the accused's claim that the passenger grabbed the steering wheel.

Applying the modified objective test, the court found the accused's excessive speed and sudden lane change constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm and unlawful confinement after an incident in a hotel room.

The complainant, who was highly intoxicated, testified that the accused forced his way into her room, ripped off her underwear, and punched her repeatedly when she tried to escape.

The accused claimed they engaged in consensual sexual activity that went wrong and that he punched her to stop her from using the telephone.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it contradictory and implausible.

While the court found the complainant was not so intoxicated as to lack capacity to consent, it accepted her evidence that she did not consent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The applicant, the sole life beneficiary of a Henson trust established by his mother's will, applied to declare the gift over of the trust residue void for uncertainty and to terminate the trust under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The respondent estate trustee opposed the application and sought a capacity assessment of the applicant.

The court held that the gift over to 'worthy individuals' was void for uncertainty, but found that the resulting intestacy would not take effect until after the applicant's death.

Consequently, the applicant could not terminate the trust as he did not hold the full beneficial interest.

The court also declined to order a capacity assessment, finding no jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act in these circumstances.

Following convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings prior to sentencing, alleging breaches of his rights under s. 14 and s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The accused claimed he required an interpreter in a specific dialect and that the failure to provide one caused unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had sufficient proficiency in English and general Yoruba to understand the proceedings, and that the request for a specific dialect interpreter was a delay tactic.

The court concluded the delay was not unreasonable and was largely attributable to the accused's own actions.

The plaintiff law firm brought two actions against the defendants for unpaid legal accounts.

The defendants pleaded equitable set-off, alleging they were overcharged on previously paid accounts.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike the equitable set-off defence, arguing it was statute-barred by the one-year limitation period in the Solicitors Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that material facts were in dispute regarding whether the accounts were interim or final, whether the presumption of acceptance by payment was rebutted, and whether special circumstances existed.

The court also noted that equitable set-off is generally not barred by statutory limitation periods.

The plaintiff moved for judgment under Rule 49.09 to enforce a $35,000 settlement agreement reached with the defendants regarding a dispute over recruitment services.

The defendants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the plaintiff's alleged bad faith in failing to disclose it had hired two candidates presented by the defendants.

The court found the plaintiff had no knowledge the candidates were referred by the defendants and made no misrepresentations.

Applying a two-step analysis, the court concluded a binding agreement existed and there was no good reason not to enforce it.

The motion was granted and the settlement enforced.