Ian F. Leach

The defendant was charged with seven counts arising from the execution of Cannabis Act search warrants at two residential properties on November 3, 2021.

The charges included unlawful possession of cannabis for purposes of distribution and sale at both properties, and unlicensed possession of firearms and a prohibited device at the rural property.

The defendant was found present at the rural property when police executed the warrant.

The Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence to establish possession.

The court found that while the Crown established the presence of substantial quantities of cannabis and firearms at both locations, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed these items.

The court acquitted on all counts, finding reasonable doubts regarding the defendant's knowledge and control over the items, the handling of evidence by police, and the possibility of indirect DNA transfer.

The Crown sought an order permitting two witnesses ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom to testify at trial via videoconference pursuant to section 714.2 of the Criminal Code.

The witnesses had testified at the preliminary inquiry by videoconference and were key to the Crown's case, having heard sounds and voices from the room where the alleged murder occurred.

The defence opposed the request, arguing that videoconference testimony would compromise the accused's right to a fair trial and full answer and defence, particularly given the seriousness of the charges and the importance of assessing witness credibility.

The court granted the Crown's request, finding that the witnesses satisfied the requirements of section 714.2, that the defence had not established that videoconference testimony would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, and that the circumstances fell squarely within the legislative intent of section 714.2.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code, as well as the sentence imposed.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal against conviction: (1) that the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility by incorporating findings of bad character, thereby tainting her analysis with impermissible propensity reasoning; and (2) that the trial judge applied uneven levels of scrutiny in assessing the evidence of the complainant versus the appellant's evidence.

The appellant also appealed the 17-month custodial sentence as excessive.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but granted a "Downes credit" for time spent on stringent bail conditions pending appeal, reducing the custodial sentence from 17 months to 7 months, with 1 month already served, requiring the appellant to serve 6 additional months in custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Devon Cherrey-Rooke, who was killed on August 7, 2022, in London, Ontario.

The offender, who was heavily intoxicated on crystal methamphetamine and fentanyl, engaged in an unprovoked armed attack on an unarmed, vulnerable homeless victim following a dispute over a drug transaction.

The attack lasted approximately 26 seconds and involved six strikes with a sharp-bladed instrument and a final kick.

The victim sustained three sharp force wounds, including a stab wound to the left thigh that severed a major artery, resulting in fatal hemorrhagic shock.

The offender fled the scene without rendering assistance, changed his distinctive clothing, and was arrested eight days later.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of nine years, with credit for 1,103 days of pretrial custody at a rate of 1.5:1, resulting in a net sentence of approximately 4 years, 5 months to be served in a federal penitentiary.

The applicant, a financial services company, brought an application seeking orders to locate and facilitate repossession of a vehicle subject to a conditional sales agreement where the respondents had allegedly defaulted on their obligations.

The respondents requested an adjournment to August 22, 2025, to retain counsel, which was granted as the first adjournment request.

However, the court expressed serious concerns regarding the applicant's choice of venue, finding that the application had no rational connection to London, Middlesex County, or the Southwest Region, as all parties, the underlying contract, and the vehicle were located in the Central West/Central East regions.

The court denied the applicant all costs for today's appearance as a sanction against forum shopping and improper venue selection.

A financing company sought an application for orders to locate and repossess equipment covered by financing and guarantee agreements that were allegedly breached.

The parties consented to an interim order requiring the respondents to deliver possession of the equipment, provide information regarding its whereabouts, and cooperate with access to premises for removal.

The application was adjourned sine die, returnable on seven days' notice.

However, the court denied the applicant all costs associated with the appearance, expressing disapproval of forum shopping, as the underlying dispute had no rational connection to the London venue where the application was brought.

The defendants brought a motion for a vexatious litigant order against the plaintiffs pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion was initiated under Rule 2.2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the procedural requirements of Rule 2.2 had not been properly followed, with the matter languishing for months without the mandatory initial review.

The judge conducted the required initial review and determined that sufficient indications of potential vexatious litigation existed to warrant a hearing under Rule 2.2.07.

The judge ordered that the hearing proceed in writing and imposed a stay of the current proceeding and prohibition on further motions pending determination of the vexatious litigant motion.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine Detective Constable William Crawford, the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavit used to secure search warrants under the Cannabis Act.

The accused was charged with three counts under the Cannabis Act and six counts under the Criminal Code related to unlicensed cannabis possession and firearms offences.

The court considered five proposed areas of cross-examination: hemp checks conducted, ability to differentiate cannabis from hemp plants, interpretation of monitored conversations, failure to include certain surveillance dates, and alleged failures to be full and frank in specific paragraphs of the ITO.

The court granted leave for cross-examination regarding hemp checks and the basis for belief about plant identification, but denied leave for the other three areas.

The court considered pre-trial applications by Althea Christopher and Tianna Smith to exclude evidence in a prosecution for unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm while occupying a motor vehicle.

The applications were based on alleged breaches of Charter rights, including unreasonable search and seizure, and failures to comply with statutory reporting requirements.

The court found that the warrantless search of the vehicle's interior, which led to the discovery of a spent bullet casing, violated section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the Crown subsequently withdrew the charges, ending the proceeding.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following a contested application to pass accounts in the insolvent estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma.

The court reviews the parties’ positions, the applicable legal principles, and the conduct of the litigation, ultimately awarding the applicant, Steve Georgiou, costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $23,000, payable by the objectors, Panayiotios Georgiou and Zevoulla Georgiou, jointly and severally.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, the impact of settlement offers, and the role of proportionality and party conduct in determining costs.

This decision concerns a contested application to pass accounts in the estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma.

The applicant, Steve Georgiou, as estate trustee, sought to have his accounts approved following an ex parte order obtained by the objectors, Panayiotios and Zevoulla Georgiou.

The court addresses threshold issues regarding the propriety of the ex parte order, the scope of the accounting required, and substantive disputes over the treatment of a life insurance policy, a "roofing agreement" debt, and a joint CIBC account.

The court finds that the life insurance proceeds did not form part of the estate, upholds the roofing agreement as a valid debt, and determines that the joint account funds are estate assets.

The estate is found to be insolvent, and the court urges the parties to resolve remaining issues by agreement.

The court considered a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with an order to vacate a property.

The applicant sought a declaration of contempt, arrest, imprisonment, and a fine.

The court reviewed the procedural and substantive requirements for civil contempt, emphasizing the need for bifurcated liability and penalty phases, and the discretionary and coercive nature of contempt powers.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, adjourning the motion to allow for further notice and submissions, and to consider less punitive remedies to achieve compliance with the original order.

The court considered two motions in a family property dispute: (1) a motion to strike paragraphs from a statement of defence, and (2) a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of beneficial ownership of real property, or, in the alternative, damages.

The court struck one paragraph with leave to amend and another without leave, and dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly regarding the parties' intentions and credibility.

The court made further orders to preserve the status quo and directed that the trial of this action be heard together with related matrimonial proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add Edward Ouellette as a defendant and substitute Stephanie Ouellette as the child plaintiff's litigation guardian.

The court expressed a preliminary view that it was problematic for Edward Ouellette to remain a plaintiff asserting Family Law Act (FLA) damages while simultaneously being added as a defendant against whom claims of independent negligence were advanced.

Citing common law principles, the court noted that a person cannot sue themselves for damages based on their own negligence.

The motion was adjourned to allow plaintiff's counsel to consider the court's concerns and propose revised pleadings, with costs reserved.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants, specifically Jaskaran Singh Bajwa, based on a guarantee agreement.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the responding defendant filed no material to support pleaded defences.

However, the court limited the plaintiff's cost recovery to partial indemnity costs, despite contractual agreements for elevated costs, due to concerns about "forum shopping" and the lack of discernible connection between the underlying dispute and the London/Middlesex County venue.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank sought summary judgment against the defendants for loan and credit card defaults.

The defendants opposed, arguing the London venue was inappropriate due to lack of local connection and that the motion was premature given potential government guarantees.

The court, noting concerns about "forum shopping" by financial institutions, adjourned the plaintiff's summary judgment motion to allow the defendants to bring a formal motion to transfer the proceeding to Toronto, and also acknowledged the prematurity argument.

This endorsement addresses the adjournment of a civil trial due to unforeseen health issues of defence counsel.

The court granted leave for the advance examination of the defendants to preserve evidence, adjourned the trial sine die, and denied the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice without prejudice.

The plaintiff was awarded costs for trial preparation "thrown away" due to the adjournment, with a specific timetable for submissions.

This case concerns a dispute over children's schooling and transportation arrangements following a unilateral change of school by the Respondent, in alleged contravention of a prior consent order for joint decision-making.

The Applicant sought to vary the existing parenting order to return the children to their previous school and for sole decision-making authority, or alternative transportation arrangements.

The Respondent cross-moved for Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement and to maintain the new school.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the Respondent's bad faith and unilateral action, ordering the children to return to their original school for the next academic year and assigning current transportation costs to the Respondent.

The plaintiff, 620369 Ontario Inc., sought default judgment against the defendants, Michael Latimer and Jodi Latimer, for unpaid building materials.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the admitted facts supported judgment based on contractual agreements and the Construction Act, including a statutory trust.

The court also addressed the high interest rate and awarded partial indemnity costs, declining substantial indemnity costs due to the absence of reprehensible conduct by the defendants.

The plaintiff, a person under disability due to a catastrophic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident, sought judicial approval of a proposed tort settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement terms, including a $1.2 million payment from the defendant's insurer and the allocation of funds, considering the significant liability risks for the plaintiff (who failed to stop at a stop sign).

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable and excellent given the circumstances, and also approved the plaintiff counsel's reduced contingency fee.