Jacob Wilson

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault, robbery with a firearm, forcible confinement, and break and enter following a violent home invasion.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors, including the trauma inflicted on the victims and the use of an imitation firearm, against mitigating factors such as the accused's limited criminal record and strict bail conditions.

Applying the principle of parity with co-accused who pleaded guilty, the court sentenced the accused to 5 years' imprisonment, less 8 months' credit for pre-trial custody and house arrest.

This criminal trial concerned a home invasion where the defendant, Bin Chen, was charged with aggravated assault (later reduced to assault causing bodily harm), robbery with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and break and enter with intent to commit robbery.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and the common purpose doctrine under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, as the complainants could not identify the intruders.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a home invasion occurred and that the alleged offences were committed.

Based on video surveillance, DNA evidence linking co-accused, and the defendant's presence at a planning meeting and the scene, the court inferred that the defendant was actively engaged in the home invasion as one of four intruders.

The defendant was found guilty on all four counts.

The complainant brought a certiorari application to quash an order granted by a lower court judge that permitted the accused to enter her home to retrieve personal belongings and take photographs.

The order was granted on consent of the Crown, but without notice to the complainant.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had standing to bring the application as a non-party directly impacted by the order.

The court held that the lower court judge made a jurisdictional error, as there was no statutory or common law authority to grant such an order without notice to the third party whose privacy interests were affected.

The order was quashed.

This case concerns a youth charged with aggravated assault, where the sole issue at trial was the identification of the accused.

The Crown relied on a witness who identified the accused based on prior acquaintance and observations during the unprovoked attack involving multiple assailants and weapons.

The court, while finding the witness truthful, determined that the objective facts, including the use of masks and limited familiarity, did not sufficiently prove the reliability of the identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to break and enter of a dwelling house, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and breach of a firearms prohibition order.

The defendant broke into a residence in Markham, was chased by the homeowner's son, and dropped a bag containing stolen wallets and cannabis.

Police subsequently executed a search warrant on the defendant's residence and located a loaded, sawed-off shotgun with the serial number removed in the defendant's bedroom closet.

The defendant was subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition order and a probation order prohibiting weapon possession at the time of the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years in the penitentiary, with credit for pre-sentence custody and enhanced credit for harsh detention conditions.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and one count of threatening bodily harm against his ex-girlfriend and mother of his child.

The Crown withdrew the threatening count and one assault count.

At trial, the court heard evidence from the complainant, a witness, and the accused regarding an incident at the complainant's residence.

The complainant alleged the accused choked and forcefully moved her during a heated argument.

The accused denied assaulting her, claiming he simply left when asked.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, finding his evidence contradictory and unreliable, while accepting the credible testimony of the complainant and witness regarding a lunge with contact.

The accused was charged with assaulting his ex-wife and threatening to kill her sister.

The Crown alleged the accused punched the complainant during a dispute over taking their youngest child out, and made graphic threats to kill the complainant's family.

The accused testified he intervened to protect the child from the complainant's physical discipline and denied both the assault and threats.

The court found reasonable doubt on both counts based on inconsistencies in the complainant's account to police, concerns regarding the timing and appearance of photographic evidence of alleged bruising, and corroborating evidence from a mutual friend regarding the complainant's motive for calling police.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

Look Communications Inc. sued its former director, Gerald McGoey, and his holding company, Jolian Investments Limited, for breach of fiduciary duty.

The claim arose from the board's approval of $20 million in "Contingent Restructuring Awards" (CRAs) to directors, officers, and employees following the sale of the company's primary assets.

The court found that McGoey breached his fiduciary duty by approving excessive CRAs, particularly the equity cancellation payments based on an inflated share price and an unwarranted $2.4 million compensation payment to himself.

The court also found a breach regarding the advancement of legal fees for directors' defense against CRA-related claims.

The court rejected McGoey's defense of reliance on legal advice, as the advice was general and did not cover the quantum or allocation of payments.

The court ordered restitution and imposed a constructive trust over the funds received by McGoey/Jolian.

The court considered costs following a successful motion by Hardath Singh, Ramkali Mohan, 1415006 Ontario Ltd., and Maple Leaf Wheelchair Manufacturing Inc. to secure a stay of a Notice of Arbitration.

The success was based on the legal principle against a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, which outweighed the policy favouring arbitration agreements.

Despite the successful outcome for these parties, the court ordered that costs be "in the cause," citing fairness under Rule 57.01(i).

This decision defers the final determination of costs to the trial judge, who will have a full understanding of the conflicting claims and procedural history.

The applicants sought to stay a Notice of Arbitration delivered by the respondent regarding an oppression claim, arguing that the dispute involved a non-party to the arbitration agreement and shared factual underpinnings with an ongoing court action.

The court found that while the non-party issue was not a roadblock to arbitration, there was a real danger of overlapping evidence and inconsistent findings of fact between the arbitration and the ongoing action.

The court granted the stay, ordering all matters to proceed in the Superior Court of Justice.