Jason Emile Bogle

The accused brought a second section 11(b) application for unreasonable delay post-conviction, shortly before sentencing.

The Crown applied to summarily dismiss the application as manifestly frivolous.

The court granted the Crown's motion and dismissed the accused's delay application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success due to the accused's extensive history of late filings, non-compliance with the rules, and conduct that deliberately contributed to delay in the proceedings.

The applicant, a former paralegal whose licence was revoked in 2018 for professional misconduct including filing forged documents and practicing while suspended, applied for re-licensing.

The Law Society referred the application to the Tribunal to determine if she met the good character requirement.

The Tribunal applied the Armstrong factors and found that the applicant lacked meaningful insight into her past misconduct and failed to demonstrate true remorse or rehabilitation.

The application for re-licensing was dismissed.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice to the moving party regarding a motion to extend time and for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision dismissing a summary judgment motion.

The court concluded that the leave to appeal proceeding was not one of the 'clearest of cases' warranting dismissal under Rule 2.1.

The court declined to dismiss the proceeding, set a timetable for the extension and leave motions to be heard in writing, and directed the moving party to provide submissions regarding a separate judicial review proceeding.

The defendants brought motions to set aside a Mareva injunction obtained ex parte by the plaintiffs in the context of a dispute over loans allegedly obtained through a Ponzi scheme.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion.

Although the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of civil fraud against the primary defendant based on false representations regarding a guarantee, they failed to establish a real risk of dissipation of assets for either defendant.

The Mareva injunction was set aside.

The claimant commenced a proceeding under section 26 of the Expropriations Act for compensation arising from the expropriation of parts of their lands by the Regional Municipality of Durham.

A Case Management Conference was held to schedule a hearing and issue a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing to commence on May 5, 2027, and issued a Procedural Order governing the future conduct of the proceeding, including mediation and the exchange of expert appraisal reports.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for arson and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties and issued a Detention Order with community living privileges, finding that the accused poses a significant threat to public safety that requires the structure of a Detention Order to manage her risk of psychotic decompensation.

Following a jury conviction for sexual interference of a 14-year-old complainant, the sentencing judge imposed a three-year penitentiary sentence.

The offence involved digital penetration and attempted penile penetration of the victim by her uncle, who held a position of trust.

The Crown sought five to six years; the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen regarding substantial sentences for child sexual abuse, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the harm caused to the victim.

The claimant filed an application for determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal notified the claimant's counsel on two occasions that the required appeal fee was outstanding and warned that failure to pay would result in dismissal.

The claimant failed to submit the fee within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The appellant, Yuliya Gavrylyuk, appealed her conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing that a second breath technician video was disclosed late and that the trial judge erred in credibility findings and mens rea application.

The Superior Court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency and due diligence, as the video was previously disclosed and counsel made a tactical decision not to use it.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings on the lawfulness of the breath demand and the appellant's deliberate refusal, affirming the mens rea standard for refusal.

The plaintiff, Michael Forstner, sued the defendants, Manbir Singh Sandhu, Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, and Computer Window Inc., for conversion of a computer/dialer and for assault and battery following an altercation.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.

It found that the plaintiff failed to prove conversion, as the computer was returned, and that the alleged assault and battery by Mrs. Sandhu was not established on a balance of probabilities.

The plaintiff's credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistent evidence regarding the purchase date and timeline of events.

Damages for conversion and personal injury were also not proven.

The defendants' counterclaim was withdrawn at the outset of the trial.

This endorsement addresses a costs ruling following successful summary judgment motions.

The defendants, as moving parties for costs, sought $70,000 in partial indemnity costs in each of two proceedings.

The plaintiffs, as responding parties, argued against the award, citing lack of notice regarding certain claims and the potential impediment to their ongoing litigation against other defendants.

The court granted the defendants the full requested costs, totaling $140,000, finding that the defendants were entirely successful, their offer to settle was generous, the allegations against them were serious, and the amount sought was reasonable.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments against the costs award.

The moving parties, including the Crown and two police officers, sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions for negligent investigation, intentional infliction of mental harm, and civil conspiracy.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a police investigation into alleged sexual assaults by two minor plaintiffs, which resulted in criminal charges that were later stayed after the minors completed counselling.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in favour of the plaintiffs, the police had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charges, and there was no evidence supporting the other tort claims.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving parties were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's amended amended statement of claim, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was devoid of material facts.

The plaintiff's claims arose from a slip and fall in prison, the loss of his personal files by Correctional Services Canada, and alleged unlawful confinement following a successful appeal.

The court struck the pleading in its entirety due to its deficiencies but granted the plaintiff leave to deliver a fresh as amended statement of claim limited to negligence for the slip and fall and lost files, and properly particularized claims regarding his release conditions.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend a Mareva injunction related to an alleged $1.4 million renovation fraud.

A defendant brought a cross-motion to discharge the order against him, and a non-party sought relief from an order compelling his examination under oath.

The court extended the Mareva order, dismissed the defendant's cross-motion as premature due to missing financial disclosure, and suspended the examination order against the non-party due to lack of service and reliance on implausible hearsay evidence.

The court also provided strict directions regarding the proper use of CaseLines and hyperlinking for future attendances.

The plaintiff, an elderly woman, brought a motion to extend an interim and interlocutory Mareva Injunction against multiple defendants, alleging over $1 million in payments for uncompleted home renovation work constituted fraud.

The Mareva Injunction had been previously ordered and extended, and a Norwich Order was made against TD Bank.

Defendant Rahimi cross-moved to lift the injunction, claiming a payment was for a Rolex sale, but his explanation was deemed unsatisfactory and his compliance with disclosure incomplete.

Defendant Alradhi sought access to funds for living and legal expenses.

The court dismissed Rahimi's motion to lift the injunction but allowed him $10,000 for preauthorized expenses.

Alradhi's request for $15,000 for expenses was granted.

The Mareva Injunction was continued against all defendants, and TD Bank was ordered to immediately comply with the Norwich Order.

The appellants sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed a 30-day suspension and seizure order of their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates.

The appellants alleged procedural unfairness and errors of law and fact, including issues regarding the assessment of their violation rates, alleged police bias, the interpretation of sections 171 and 177 of the Highway Traffic Act, and the consideration of a manager's driving incident.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no violation of procedural fairness and no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), which found insufficient evidence that police officers committed misconduct during an interaction that ended with the applicant's daughter falling to her death from a balcony.

The applicant alleged excessive force, neglect of duty, deceit, and discreditable conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's investigation and conclusions were reasonable, transparent, and justified based on the evidence.

Winston Walters pleaded guilty to five offences, including two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of a restricted firearm with readily accessible ammunition, and breach of a release order.

The prosecution sought a global sentence of eight years, while the offender requested time served (credited as three years) with potential probation or a conditional sentence.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the offender's background, pre-trial detention conditions, and established sentencing ranges for drug and firearm offences.

The court rejected the defence's argument that anti-Black racism mitigated the offender's blameworthiness due to a lack of specific evidence connecting systemic racism to his criminality.

The judge imposed a global sentence of eight years, comprising three years for the gun offence (credited as time served plus one day) and five years consecutive for the drug offences, with concurrent sentences for proceeds of crime and breach of bail.

The appellants, two tow truck companies, appealed a 30-day Suspension and Seizure Order of their Commercial Vehicle Operator Registrations (CVOR) issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The Tribunal found that the two companies were related entities under the Highway Traffic Act.

Based on the companies' poor safety records and numerous police reports detailing unsafe roadside behaviour and refusal to follow police direction at collision scenes, the Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not operate commercial vehicles safely or in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension order was confirmed.

The plaintiff, an experienced private lender, brought an action against a law clerk and two lawyers for negligence, fraud, and conspiracy arising from defaulted mortgage investments.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked evidentiary support.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting her claims well beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence on the standard of care for the professional negligence claims and offered no evidence to support the allegations of fraud and conspiracy.