Jarvis Ortega

The Ontario Court of Justice found Omar Ashraf Elkhodary guilty of assaulting Vicky Moscoe by pushing her during a confrontation over posters depicting child hostages.

The court carefully analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, rejecting Elkhodary's claim of self-defence.

The court applied the modern self-defence framework under Section 34 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing the accused's purpose and reasonable belief of threat.

It concluded Elkhodary's actions were motivated by a desire to remove the posters rather than to defend himself, and that no reasonable grounds existed to believe force was being used or threatened by the complainant.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for a mandatory order requiring the respondents to relocate the venting of a furnace and hot water heater from the side to the top of the respondents' house.

The appellants had claimed that emissions from the side venting were obnoxious, caused fumes and vapours that made one appellant ill, caused ice buildup on their walkway, and posed potential future danger to their siding.

The trial judge found that the appellants' complaints did not constitute a substantial interference with their enjoyment of property under the law of nuisance, as the expert evidence was insufficient, health claims were unsupported by medical evidence, ice buildup was insignificant, and future damage claims were speculative.

The appellants did not appeal the dismissal of their damages claim but only the dismissal of the mandatory order claim.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking an order for the sale of a property or a finding of constructive trust, alleging a fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The motion was dismissed as the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court determined that a full evidentiary record was necessary to properly assess the flow of funds from a prior property sale, an alleged loan by one defendant to his parents (the other defendants), and its repayment, which were central to determining if valuable consideration was given and if the transaction was impeachable.