Jason Little

Justin Thombs was convicted of five counts of possession for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of stolen license plates.

The drugs seized included significant quantities of fentanyl (54.35g), methamphetamine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and MDMA, with an estimated street value of $8,326 to $15,406.

The Crown sought a 9-year penitentiary term, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for mid-to-high level dealers, particularly those trafficking fentanyl.

The defence sought a 3-4 year term, characterizing the client as a low-to-mid level dealer with rehabilitation prospects.

The court found several aggravating factors, including the offender's criminal record with prior trafficking convictions, the nature and quantity of the drugs (especially fentanyl), and the use of stolen license plates to facilitate criminal activity.

Mitigating factors included a history of employment, family support, engagement in rehabilitative programming while in detention, and an acknowledgment of responsibility.

The court gave minimal weight to the offender's addiction as a mitigating factor, finding no causal connection to his trafficking.

A global sentence of 9 years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining term of 6 years, 7.5 months.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA sample, and forfeiture of seized items were also issued.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder of his intimate partner, applied for bail pending trial.

At the time of the offence, he was on bail for breaking into the victim's home.

Following the killing, he fled to the United States and was apprehended 2.5 months later.

The accused proposed a release plan involving house arrest, GPS monitoring, and his mother and sister as sureties.

The court dismissed the application on all three grounds, finding the accused ungovernable, contemptuous of court orders, and a flight risk, and concluding that his proposed sureties could not adequately supervise him.

The applicant sought a bail review under Section 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on secondary grounds.

The court found that the proposed new sureties and electronic monitoring constituted admissible new evidence, representing a material change in circumstances.

Applying the Palmer criteria, the court determined that the comprehensive release plan, including house arrest, strict supervision by credible sureties, and GPS monitoring, adequately addressed the secondary ground concerns regarding the likelihood of the applicant committing further offenses or interfering with the administration of justice.

Consequently, the detention order was set aside, and judicial interim release was granted with strict conditions.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion seeking an order that his brother disclose information about their late father's assets and account for property and finances under a power of attorney.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding the appellant lacked standing.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred on the standing issue but upheld the dismissal on discretionary grounds.

The court found the parents had executed written instructions prohibiting disclosure to the appellant, and there was no evidence of improper conduct by the brother acting as attorney for property.

Manuel Pereira appealed his sentence for dangerous driving and stunt driving, specifically challenging a 24-month driving prohibition.

The appellant argued that the sentencing Justice failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not adequately consider mitigating factors, rendering the driving ban demonstrably unfit.

The Crown sought dismissal of the appeal, asserting the sentence was fair.

The Superior Court of Justice, applying a standard of deference to the sentencing judge, dismissed the appeal, finding the driving ban was entirely fit given the appellant's egregious driving record and the severity of the current offences, distinguishing his case from those of first-time offenders.

The plaintiff was almost entirely successful on a motion to compel answers to nearly 90 undertakings and refusals in an estate litigation matter.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on two offers to settle.

The defendant argued the motion was unnecessary and that costs should be left to the trial judge.

The court found the motion was straightforward but important, and that the plaintiff's claimed costs were reasonable.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $6,600 for fees plus $343.51 for disbursements, plus HST.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to strike portions of the statement of claim, the court received written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and offers to settle.

The defendant argued costs should be left to the trial judge.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, considered the factors under Rule 57 and the delay under Rule 21.02, and fixed costs payable to the plaintiff at $9,000 inclusive.