James Clark

The applicant brought a motion before the Court of Appeal.

Due to a non-publication order imposed at the bail hearing under s. 517 of the Criminal Code, as well as publication bans under s. 110 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code, the court's decision contains protected information.

Consequently, the full decision is withheld from online publication until the order ceases to be in effect, though it remains available at the court registry.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and possession of child pornography, raising three grounds including that the application judge erred in dismissing his s. 11(b) Charter application.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge incorrectly characterized multiple periods of delay as defence delay, applying a bright-line rule later rejected by the Supreme Court in Hanan.

Properly calculated, the net delay exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling by nearly three months, and the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances.

The convictions were quashed and a stay of proceedings entered.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 years imprisonment (less 50 months presentence custody) imposed after pleading guilty to twelve firearm-related offences, including two counts of discharge of a prohibited firearm with intent to prevent arrest, possession of a firearm while prohibited, dangerous driving, and possession of explosive substances.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence, failed to properly consider mitigating factors including his guilty plea, and imposed an excessive sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge's decision reasonable and the sentence appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the need for an exemplary sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and his sentence.

The appellant was charged in September 2019 with sexual assault and administering a noxious substance.

The latter charge was withdrawn.

Following a hung jury in June 2022, the appellant was tried before a judge alone, who found that he sexually assaulted the complainant twice.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) the trial judge erred in finding no breach of section 8 of the Charter regarding an overbroad search of his cell phone; (2) the trial judge erred in finding no breach of section 7 of the Charter based on non-disclosure of the information to obtain the search warrant and minimized the materiality of the hotel video in the conviction; and (3) the trial judge erred in failing to grant sufficient sentencing credit for harsh conditions in pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld both the conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by the defendants, Danping Wang (also known as Linda Wang) and Shi Gang Ni (also known as Simon Ni), from a judgment awarding $555,000 to the respondent, Jamshid Nayyer, for breach of contract.

The trial judge found that the parties had a valid oral agreement entitling the respondent to a 20% interest in certain properties, which was later exchanged for a full interest in a condominium.

The trial judge’s findings on credibility and the evidence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, Jessica Martin, sought a review of her bail denial after being charged with several offences, including first degree murder (later dropped), kidnapping, obstructing justice, accessory after the fact to murder, aggravated assault, and assault causing bodily harm.

The Court considered whether there was a material change in circumstances, legal error, or whether the detention was "clearly unwarranted." The Court found no material change, no legal or palpable and overriding error, and that the decision to detain was reasonable.

The application was dismissed.

This decision concerns an oppression remedy application and counterapplication under section 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

The dispute is between two siblings, Asanka and Shamali, regarding the beneficial ownership and management of a small convenience store business operated through 1000635690 Ontario Inc. The court finds that both parties have reasonable expectations and have, in different ways, been oppressed by the other’s conduct.

The court orders a collaborative business arrangement until the expiry of the lease, after which Asanka will acquire full ownership, and profits will be distributed according to a specified formula.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his application to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity under s. 276(2) of the Criminal Code, assessing his credibility, finding the requisite mens rea, and handling a post-trial application to re-open the trial involving solicitor-client privilege.

The Crown requested an in camera hearing for the appeal, which the Court of Appeal denied, finding alternative measures sufficient to protect the complainant's privacy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, credibility assessments, or application of the subjective mens rea standard.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter despite s. 8 and s. 9 breaches.

Police stopped his vehicle for a Highway Traffic Act violation and arrested him based on an Alberta warrant, which was later found to be geographically restricted.

A firearm was discovered during a search incident to arrest.

The trial judge found the police conduct inadvertent and not in bad faith, and that the seriousness of the charges weighed in favour of inclusion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, deferring to her assessment of police conduct as being on the less serious end of the spectrum and emphasizing the seriousness of the firearm charges.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for firearms possession, arguing the vehicle search was unlawful under the Liquor Licence Act (LLA), the traffic stop was a pretext, and the evidence did not prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the search lawful under the LLA, rejecting the pretext argument (including a new racial profiling claim), and affirming the trial judge's finding of possession based on ample evidence.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, uttering threats, and failing to comply with a release order.

The appeal raised two grounds: an alleged s. 10(b) Charter violation regarding the right to counsel, and an alleged error in refusing an election for a preliminary inquiry under s. 536 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant's right to counsel was respected and that an election for trial by judge alone had already been made.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned corporation, brought an oppression application against his two sisters, the other shareholders.

The parties were deadlocked over the sale of the corporation's main assets, two commercial properties.

On a short motion prior to the hearing of the main oppression application, the applicant sought an order for an appraisal of the properties.

The respondents opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction prior to an oppression finding.

The court ordered the corporation to fund an appraisal, finding it could help break the logjam between the siblings and shed light on the value of the properties.

The moving party, Dramel Limited (respondent in the appeal), brought a motion for security for costs against the appellants, Gurnam Multani and Surjit Multani, in an appeal concerning over $25 million in mortgage debts.

The court granted the motion, finding that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious under Rule 61.06(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given the appellants' concession of unpaid loans, acknowledged amounts in forbearance agreements, and findings of deliberate attempts to mislead the court.

The court also determined that the appellants had insufficient assets to cover appeal costs and noted a history of procedural delay and unwillingness to pay.

Security for costs was ordered for both the appeal and a prior costs order.

The appellant, Daniel Neill, appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography, arguing that evidence was obtained in breach of his s. 8 Charter rights due to an unlawful warrantless seizure of his Blackberry and issues with the subsequent search warrant and forensic analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure and that the trial judge correctly applied the doctrine of severance to an outdated search warrant form.

The court also found no s. 8 breach regarding the timing of the forensic analysis, as the warrant did not specify a timeframe for it.

Ultimately, the court concluded that even if additional s. 8 violations were found, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for serious firearms and drug offences, including possession of a prohibited firearm, pointing a firearm, and cocaine trafficking.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by misunderstanding the "true crime" characterization of the offences and by misapprehending mitigating factors.

The court emphasized that possession of a loaded handgun is a serious offence normally attracting a penitentiary term, and the mitigating factors in this case were not strong enough to warrant a conditional sentence.

The appeal was allowed, the original sentences were set aside, and a total effective sentence of four and one-half years of imprisonment was imposed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged search warrants, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the affiant and that there were insufficient grounds for the warrants.

The sentence appeal argued the trial judge erred in treating the duration of activities as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in refusing cross-examination or in the warrant's issuance.

It allowed the sentence appeal, converting the nine-month custodial term to a conditional sentence order due to the trial judge's error and mitigating factors.

The plaintiff, Ontario, brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to increase damages, provide further particulars of alleged kickback schemes, and add additional defendants in a civil fraud action.

The defendants and proposed added defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments lacked particularity, used vague 'and/or' formulations, and failed to meet the minimum level of material fact disclosure.

The court agreed that several proposed paragraphs were deficient as they did not clearly identify which allegations were made against which specific defendants.

The motion was dismissed, but the plaintiff was granted leave to renew its motion with a properly drafted amended pleading.

The appellant appealed convictions for various drug-related offences, challenging the trial judge's findings on reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and the legality of a search incident to arrest under section 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, based on confidential informant information and the discovery of drugs in the appellant's car.

The court also upheld the search of a locked container within the vehicle as a lawful search incident to arrest, despite the appellant's assertion of privacy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, Saidi Olufeko and Tajudeen Fanikayode, appealed their convictions related to the importation and trafficking of heroin.

Olufeko also appealed his 16-year sentence.

The appeals raised issues including the admissibility and caution for in-court identification, the adequacy of W.(D.) jury instructions, alleged improper criticism of counsel's closing address, and the reasonableness of the verdict and sentence parity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals against conviction and Olufeko's appeal against sentence, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's rulings or the sentence imposed.

The accused, charged with serious drug offences, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being refused Legal Aid.

The court found that counsel was essential for a fair trial due to the complexity of the case, the accused's limited English, and the severe potential consequences.

Despite vague financial evidence, the court accepted that the accused, a gig economy worker, lacked the means to afford the substantial retainers required by private counsel.

The application was granted, and proceedings were stayed until funding is provided, subject to the accused contributing $5,000.