Ian Greenway

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add Paragon Protection Ltd. as a defendant, responsible for security at the mall where she slipped and fell.

The proposed defendant opposed, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court considered the discoverability doctrine under the Limitations Act, 2002, and Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering Paragon's involvement within the limitation period, as a security guard was present at the scene of the accident and identifiable.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant was found guilty of two counts of possessing a Schedule I substance for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act: one count for fentanyl and one count for heroin.

Both convictions arose from a single criminal act involving possession of a brown substance containing a mixture of heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamine.

The Crown conceded that the Kienapple principle applied, requiring that only one conviction be registered.

The court determined that the heroin conviction should proceed and the fentanyl conviction should be conditionally stayed, as the defendant's moral culpability was fully reflected in the heroin conviction, which matched his actual knowledge and intent.

The accused pleaded guilty to simple possession of hydromorphone.

He was originally prescribed the drug for chronic pain from workplace injuries and a car accident, which led to an addiction.

The Crown sought a six-month conditional sentence, while the accused sought a suspended sentence.

The court considered the accused's lack of a prior criminal record, his steady employment, and his significant rehabilitative efforts, including 18 years of treatment for opiate dependency and recent success in tapering his methadone dose.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months of probation, finding a custodial sentence unwarranted.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in crack cocaine, methamphetamine, powdered cocaine, and hydromorphone, as well as breach of bail conditions.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4 years, while the defence sought an upper reformatory sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day, followed by three years of probation, with a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The sentencing decision balanced the serious nature of the drugs involved, particularly hydromorphone, against the accused's status as a first offender, his youth, his addiction, and his demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation while in custody.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision ordering him to pay $25,000 in compensation for disposing of the tenant's property after an eviction.

The tenant had been incarcerated, and his parents attempted to pay rent, but the landlord refused payment and ignored their communications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion that the landlord's conduct constituted an abuse of process was reasonable and supported by the evidence.