Jason Emile Bogle

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The defendants' counterclaim was withdrawn at the outset of the trial.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

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 plaintiff brought an urgent motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property she had an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for, which the defendant was attempting to sell to a third party.

The transaction had failed to close due to disputes over extension requests.

The court considered the equitable factors for granting a CPL, including the uniqueness of the land, the plaintiff's intentions, the adequacy of damages as a remedy, and the plaintiff's diligence in prosecuting the claim.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence on uniqueness and intent vague and concluded that the plaintiff had not prosecuted the claim with reasonable diligence.

The motion for a CPL was dismissed, and the plaintiff's alternative request for payment of sale proceeds into court was also denied.

This decision concerns the costs of a motion where Dynacare Gamma Laboratory Partnership successfully moved to strike Stedfasts Inc.'s Amended Statement of Claim for non-compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dynacare sought $9,972.52 in costs, which the court found fair and reasonable.

Stedfasts Inc. "shamelessly" requested $13,544.25 for its purported success or, alternatively, no costs, and accused Dynacare of bad faith, which the court dismissed.

The court awarded Dynacare its requested costs, emphasizing the reasonableness of their claim given Stedfasts' repeated non-compliant pleadings.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for damages arising from an arrest.

The defendants, as the successful parties, sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued against a cost award, citing divided success, public interest litigation, and access to justice concerns.

The court rejected these arguments, affirming the general principle that costs follow the event.

While finding the defendants entitled to costs, the court declined to impose joint and several liability on both plaintiffs, instead apportioning costs separately.

The total amount of costs awarded was significantly reduced from the amount sought by the defendants, emphasizing proportionality and reasonableness, particularly given the case's initial designation as a simplified procedure action.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order compelling answers to undertakings, refusals, and questions taken under advisement from Huddy Conserve in the context of a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The application sought forfeiture of $53,990.00 in Canadian currency found in Mr. Conserve's home, alleged to be proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity (e.g., undeclared income, proceeds of crime, drug trafficking).

Mr. Conserve claimed legitimate ownership, having saved the funds over his working life.

The court found the requested information relevant to Mr. Conserve's financial means and the legitimacy of the funds, and ordered him to provide the answers and documents, emphasizing the "best efforts" requirement for disclosure.

The accused, Hassan Abdulle, sought a stay of proceedings under sections 9, 11(b), and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The total delay was calculated at 19-20 months, well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters established in R. v. Jordan.

The court applied the Jordan framework, requiring the defence to demonstrate both "meaningful steps that demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings" and that the matter "took markedly longer than it reasonably should have." The court found that the defence did not take sufficient sustained steps beyond merely requesting earlier dates and did not waive any procedural steps.

Furthermore, considering the complexity of securing witness testimony and the multiple charges, the court concluded the matter had not taken "markedly longer than it should have." The application for a stay was dismissed.

The plaintiff's action against police defendants, alleging Charter breaches, negligent investigation, falsified evidence, and assault, was dismissed after a lengthy trial where the plaintiff failed to prove any allegations and was found to be an incredible witness.

The defendants, as the successful parties, sought partial indemnity costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considered the seriousness of the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations and his conduct in forcing a lengthy trial.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $367,704.87, finding the request fair and reasonable.

Three accused persons charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act brought a Charter application alleging violation of their s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Crown laid four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking against each accused involving cocaine, MDMA, methamphetamine, and marijuana.

The case was initially commenced in Toronto but was transferred to Brampton where the offences occurred.

The preliminary inquiry commenced on April 14, 2015, but collapsed after the Crown received analysis certificates showing the alleged methamphetamine was not a controlled substance.

The Crown amended the charges to reduce cocaine and MDMA to simple possession and elected to proceed summarily.

The court found the Crown failed to act diligently in preparing its case, failed to disclose critical certificates in a timely manner, and caused unnecessary delay through improper venue selection.

The total delay of approximately 22 months, comprising 7.5 months of institutional delay and 6.5 months of Crown delay, exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months for provincial court matters.

The court found the accused suffered actual prejudice through stress and anxiety from facing unmeritorious trafficking charges for an extended period, increased legal fees, and restrictions on liberty.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The defendant was charged under the Insurance Act of Ontario with acting as an unlicensed insurance agent.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant offered or assumed to act in the negotiation of insurance on behalf of an insurer without being a licensed agent or broker.

The defendant claimed she was merely a go-between connecting the complainant with another party and was at best a salesperson.

The court found that the defendant engaged in multiple communications, discussions, and meetings with the complainant, took copies of his driver's license and vehicle ownership, arranged for delivery of fraudulent insurance documents, and received payment.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and found her guilty of acting as an unlicensed insurance agent in violation of section 393(23) of the Insurance Act.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, dangerous driving, failing to provide the necessities of life, refusal to provide a breath sample, and failing to comply with probation following an incident on January 9, 2011.

The accused was observed driving erratically on Finch Avenue with two young daughters in the vehicle.

Police observed signs of impairment including vomit on the accused and his clothing, glossy red eyes, slurred speech, and unsteady gait.

The accused claimed he was suffering from a viral illness with vertigo rather than impairment.

The court rejected the accused's evidence and found him guilty on all counts, finding that the accused was intoxicated and drove in a dangerous manner while failing to provide safe transportation to his daughters.

The court also found the accused deliberately failed to provide a breath sample.

The defendant was charged with willfully obstructing a peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty by interfering with the lawful arrest of another person, and with assaulting a peace officer.

The defendant also brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings based on allegations of excessive use of police force.

The trial proceeded on a blended basis with the Charter applications.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts after rejecting the defendant's evidence as unreliable and inconsistent, and accepting the evidence of the police officers as accurate and reliable.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding no excessive use of force by police.

Following a jury trial dismissing claims for assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, and negligent police investigation arising from an altercation at a shopping centre, the successful defendants sought costs.

The action had involved a 14‑day trial and earlier motions with costs reserved to the trial judge.

The court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the significant damages claimed, and the time required to defend the action.

Although the police defendants argued for a higher scale of costs due to allegations of bad faith and fraud, the court treated all claims as falling within the partial indemnity scale.

Costs were awarded to both groups of defendants in the amounts requested.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to armed bank robberies committed in Windsor and four additional robberies in Toronto involving firearms, disguises, and violence against bank employees.

The parties jointly proposed a global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The court held that although a higher sentence in the range of 12 to 15 years would otherwise be fit given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the joint submission did not meet the high threshold required to reject it.

The court also considered the application of the Truth in Sentencing Act and the proper credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719 of the Criminal Code.

Credit was granted at 1:1 for the period before the guilty pleas and 1.5:1 for the period after the pleas due to sentencing delay beyond the offenders’ control.

Following a successful motion by the defendant to enforce a settlement agreement dismissing the action without costs, the court determined the appropriate costs of the motion.

The court found the motion had been unnecessary because the plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence explaining or disputing the settlement offer made by counsel.

While the defendant sought higher costs, the court declined to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

Instead, costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $2,700 all-inclusive.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and dismiss the plaintiff’s solicitor’s negligence action without costs.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s counsel had authority to offer a settlement dismissing the action without costs and that the defendant accepted the offer, but the plaintiff later refused to execute the consent dismissal.

The court applied the principles governing settlements reached by counsel and found that the plaintiff’s lawyer had authority to bind the client and that all essential terms of the settlement had been agreed upon.

The plaintiff provided no affidavit evidence disputing the instructions given to counsel or explaining why the settlement should not be enforced.

The court concluded that a binding settlement existed and ordered the action dismissed in accordance with the settlement.