Jeffrey Langevin

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment in a civil action arising from the plaintiff's arrest and prosecution for assault during a family law dispute.

The plaintiff claimed malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of mental suffering, negligent investigation, false arrest, false imprisonment, and Charter violations against her ex-husband, the OPP officers, and the Crown.

The court found that the criminal proceedings were not terminated in the plaintiff's favour, as the charges were withdrawn pursuant to a diversion agreement, and there was no evidence of malice or investigative deficiency on the part of the police.

Against the ex-husband, the court found insufficient evidence of deliberate falsehood to police or malicious intent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against all defendants.

Both parties brought motions for interim relief in a family law proceeding.

The applicant sought disclosure and costs for the respondent's failure to attend questioning, while the respondent sought to reduce or terminate an existing interim spousal support order.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $650 in costs for failing to attend questioning without notice.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to vary interim spousal support, finding no substantial change in circumstances to justify a variation prior to trial.

The mother was previously found in contempt of court for breaching parenting orders and alienating the child from the father.

At the penalty hearing, the court found the mother had not purged her contempt and continued to act unilaterally.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence or impose a jail sentence, finding a motion to change was the appropriate vehicle for custody issues.

Instead, the court ordered the mother to pay a $2,000 fine, reimburse the father $4,725 for reunification counselling, complete a high-conflict parenting course, and pay full indemnity costs of $16,314.38.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to advance the litigation, including failing to attend an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff's counsel also sought to be removed from the record due to an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as the plaintiff had retrieved its file and ceased communication.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel and gave the plaintiff 60 days to appoint new counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person, failing which the defendants could renew their motion to strike the claim.

Following a trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining equalization and spousal support, while the respondent was successful in obtaining a finding of parental alienation and limiting spousal support.

The court found the applicant's alienating conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Balancing the divided success, the applicant's bad faith, and the respondent's excessive costs claims, the court ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

Following a 29-year marriage, the parties sought a determination on equalization, section 7 expenses for their adult daughter's post-secondary education, and spousal support.

The court determined the equalization payment, finding that certain joint bank accounts containing the respondent's inheritances were excluded property due to a resulting trust.

The court ordered both parties to equally share the daughter's outstanding OSAP loan.

The respondent's claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed, but ongoing spousal support of $600 per month was awarded based on both compensatory and needs-based grounds.

The parties separated after a 10-year marriage.

The applicant mother sought to set aside a marriage contract signed days before the wedding, claiming she did not understand its nature or consequences.

The court agreed and set aside the contract, awarding the mother an equalization payment of $289,170.15 and spousal support of $3,636 per month for seven years.

On parenting, the court found the mother had engaged in parental alienation, severely damaging the father's relationship with the 16-year-old child.

The court ordered joint decision-making and mandatory reunification counselling, with costs of the counselling to be shared equally.

The accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude two videotapes containing a confession to the murder of the deceased.

The confession was obtained during a 14-month undercover police operation, which the court identified as a variation of a 'Mr. Big' scheme.

The undercover officers posed as criminals and offered to help the accused defeat an upcoming polygraph test, leading to a confession and re-enactment of the stabbing.

The court applied the Hart framework and found that while the operation triggered the presumptive inadmissibility of the confession, the Crown successfully proved the confession was reliable and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court also dismissed arguments that the police conduct violated section 7 of the Charter or amounted to an abuse of process.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application to invalidate a patent agreement and the granting of the respondent's counter-application, the successful respondent sought costs.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the actual fees claimed to be excessive for a simple application.

The court declined to order costs jointly and severally, instead ordering the applicant and the co-respondent (who aligned with the applicant) to pay discrete amounts reflecting their respective contributions to the costs incurred.

The applicant corporation sought a declaration that a patent agreement executed by its former president with the respondent was invalid, arguing the president lacked authority without a two-thirds majority shareholder approval.

The respondent brought a counter-application to enforce the agreement, arguing it was a valid licensing and option agreement.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the counter-application, finding no evidence of a unanimous shareholder agreement restricting the president's authority.

The court applied the indoor management rule and section 18 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, holding that the respondent was entitled to rely on the president's apparent authority to bind the corporation.

The accused, a 23-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced for impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, following an ATV crash.

The accused drove an ATV while impaired, with two passengers, resulting in the death of one passenger and serious injuries to the other.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victims, the accused's high moral blameworthiness, and the principles of deterrence and denunciation against mitigating factors including her youth, lack of prior record, and remorse.

The court imposed a global sentence of 66 months imprisonment, less 14 months credit for pre-sentence custody, and a 7-year driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, driving over 80 causing death and bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm following an ATV accident.

The accused drove an ATV not meant for passengers with two passengers, one without a helmet, after consuming alcohol.

The ATV crashed in a ditch, seriously injuring one passenger and causing the death of the other.

The court acquitted the accused of the over 80 charges due to evidence of bolus drinking raising a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found the accused was impaired and that her series of negligent decisions constituted a marked and significant departure from the standard of a reasonable person.

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm and death, and criminal negligence causing bodily harm and death.

The accused, charged with the first-degree murder of her common-law spouse by stabbing, applied for judicial interim release.

The court found that while the proposed bail plan (involving the Elizabeth Fry Society and electronic monitoring) mitigated the primary and secondary grounds for detention, it failed to satisfy the tertiary ground.

Given the strength of the Crown's case, the potential for a lengthy sentence, and the accused's post-offence dissembling, the court held that releasing the accused without a reliable surety and strict supervision would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a vehicle search.

The police had stopped the vehicle and arrested the accused based on an anonymous tip that he was transporting drugs.

The court found that the tip was compelling, the informant was credible based on past interactions, and the police corroborated the information before the arrest.

The court held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the subsequent search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The application was dismissed.

The Attorney General brought a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 seeking forfeiture of $44,425 seized from a camping trailer during execution of a search warrant.

Police located cocaine, marijuana, cutting agents, digital scales, packaging materials, and large bundles of cash, and ion testing showed cocaine traces throughout the trailer.

The responding owner asserted the money was lawfully derived from cash automobile sales and stored in the trailer due to personal and financial circumstances.

The court admitted expert evidence linking the packaging and denominations of the cash to drug trafficking and found the respondent’s explanation not credible.

On the balance of probabilities, the court held the currency constituted proceeds and/or an instrument of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and ordered forfeiture to the Crown.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a brutal beating of the victim with a pipe.

While the accused admitted to an initial simple assault, he denied involvement in the subsequent pipe attack.

The court analyzed text message evidence and the doctrine of common intention under section 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused formed a common intention with others to assault the victim and that bodily harm was an objectively foreseeable consequence, rendering him guilty as a party to the aggravated assault.

Following dismissal of an action for delay against several defendants, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving defendants sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $200,000.

The plaintiff did not dispute entitlement to costs but argued for nominal costs based on impecuniosity.

The court accepted that financial hardship may be considered but emphasized that impecuniosity cannot shield a litigant from the costs consequences of unreasonable conduct or prolonged delay.

Balancing the plaintiff’s financial circumstances against the lengthy litigation history, the court reduced the claimed costs and fixed costs at $50,000 for each group of defendants.

The defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict acquitting him of four counts related to cocaine trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including numerical text messages sent from the defendant's phone to a co-accused's phone.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, considering whether the circumstantial evidence was reasonably capable of supporting the inferences the Crown asked the jury to draw.

The court found there was some direct and circumstantial evidence to support the inference that the defendant was a party to an agreement to sell cocaine, and therefore dismissed the motion.