Jennifer K. Penman

The accused was charged with discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life and related offences following a shooting in High Park.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness descriptions, CCTV footage, GPS data from the accused's ankle monitor, and DNA found on the firearm.

The court found the identification evidence compelling and rejected the defence's alternative theories as speculative.

The court inferred the intent to endanger life from the accused's actions, including firing multiple shots in the direction of the victim after a verbal altercation.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearm possession offences following an undercover police investigation.

The Crown sought to admit hearsay evidence from a deceased landlord who provided lease documents and statements linking the accused to two units where drugs and firearms were found.

The court admitted the hearsay evidence under the principled exception, finding it necessary and threshold reliable.

The court found the accused guilty of trafficking cocaine through the use of runners and concluded he had constructive possession of the drugs and firearms located in the units, rejecting the defence witness's claim of ownership.

The applicants brought a constitutional application challenging PIPEDA provisions permitting voluntary disclosure of subscriber information to government institutions without prior judicial authorization and related veto provisions limiting disclosure to affected individuals.

They alleged infringements of Charter ss. 8, 7, and 2(b), arguing the scheme lacked oversight, accountability, and transparency.

The court held it was bound by appellate authority that PIPEDA does not itself confer search or seizure powers, so s. 8 was not engaged on this record, and further held the s. 7 claim was a repackaging of the s. 8 arguments.

The court also found no s. 2(b) breach because the veto provisions are discretionary, incorporate balancing, and did not substantially impede meaningful public discussion.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff's defamation claim was statute barred under section 6 of the Libel and Slander Act (LSA).

The plaintiff published an article alleging the plaintiff hired a hacker to destroy a video of Mayor Rob Ford.

The plaintiff commenced the action more than three months after learning of the publication.

The defendants argued that the preconditions in sections 7 and 8 of the LSA were satisfied, making the three-month limitation period applicable.

The court found that the article was published in Ontario and that the publisher's information was substantially compliant with statutory requirements.

The motion was granted and the claim was dismissed as statute barred.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for breaching a Mareva order.

The defendant had drawn approximately $950,000 from lines of credit secured against her properties, contrary to the order.

The defendant admitted to the breach and claimed she had been defrauded in a cryptocurrency investment scheme.

The court found the defendant in contempt but imposed a fine of $7,500 rather than imprisonment, considering the defendant's personal circumstances, remorse, and the fact that the contemptuous conduct was complete.

Costs were fixed at $50,000.

The applicants appealed an arbitration award that upheld the termination of their Canadian Tire dealer contract and applied to set aside the award on procedural fairness grounds.

The termination arose after the dealer processed a bulk sale of nearly $1 million in air fryers to a reseller and subsequently failed to reverse the transaction as requested, instead substituting other products.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator applied the correct legal test for wilful blindness and did not breach procedural fairness.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the arbitrator's decision.

The court fixed costs following trial in favour of Kingsdale Partners LP, the successful party, in the amount of $475,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision reviews the factors relevant to the exercise of discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, including the complexity of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the reasonableness of the costs claimed.

The court reduced the amount sought due to concerns about duplication of work and high hourly rates, but found the overall claim proportionate to the litigation and the parties' resources.

The court dismissed a motion for partial summary judgment brought by the defendants, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP and its partners, in a professional negligence action arising from advice and services provided in connection with an employee stock trust and a 2012 financing transaction.

The court found that the case involved complex factual disputes, credibility issues, and conflicting expert evidence regarding the scope of the defendants’ retainer and standard of care.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate given the need for a full trial to resolve these issues, and also noted the risk of inconsistent findings due to parallel actions involving related parties and issues.

This appeal concerns whether Honda Canada Inc. is entitled to indemnity from Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Ltd. for class counsel fees and settlement administration costs arising from the settlement of class actions related to defective air bag actuator components.

The court upheld the arbitration award requiring Tokio to indemnify Honda for class counsel fees under the umbrella liability policy, but not for settlement administration costs, which were found to be excluded as recall or product withdrawal expenses.

Air Canada challenged the Ontario Minister of Finance’s decision to deny repayment of taxes levied under s. 2(4.1) of the Gasoline Tax Act on fuel transfers at the Ottawa airport.

Air Canada argued the tax was constitutionally inapplicable under the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and territorial jurisdiction.

The court held that the tax does not trench on or impair the core of federal aeronautics jurisdiction and that the transaction had a sufficient connection to Ontario to ground the province’s jurisdiction.

The applications were dismissed.

The court considered whether Kingsdale Partners LP was entitled to a success fee from Sprott Asset Management LP under an engagement agreement relating to Sprott’s acquisition of Central Fund of Canada Ltd. (CFCL).

The court found that the agreement was not limited to a single strategy and was not terminated prior to Sprott’s acquisition of CFCL’s assets.

The court held that Kingsdale was entitled to the success fee and an additional management fee, rejecting Sprott’s arguments that the fee was not triggered or should be de minimis due to the structure of the transaction.

This appeal decision addresses whether the trial judge erred in dismissing Charter challenges and in sentencing, following Raquel Rodrigues’s conviction for “over 80” under s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that her s. 9 Charter rights were violated by being handcuffed in a police car for 30 minutes, that breath samples should have been excluded under s. 24(2), and that credit should have been given for a pre-trial driving prohibition.

The court found the trial judge’s findings reasonable, deferred to the trial judge’s discretion, and dismissed the appeal.

The accused, Talicia Bryan, faced multiple charges related to the possession of drugs, a loaded firearm, and explosive materials found during a police search of an apartment.

The Crown argued that the accused was in constructive or joint possession of the items, pointing to her occupancy of the apartment and the high value of the drugs.

The defence argued that the items belonged to an associate of the accused whose fingerprint was found on the firearm and who also had access to the residence.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the illicit items, resulting in her acquittal on all counts.

The court considered whether Hady Delgado was in constructive or joint possession of drugs and cash found in a bedroom he shared with his brother.

The evidence was circumstantial, and the court found that while there was a strong inference of knowledge, there was a reasonable alternative inference that the drugs belonged to Jersey Delgado and were in the room without Hady's knowledge.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Hady was in possession and acquitted him on all counts.

The decision addresses an application by Tenzin Palden to exclude evidence of cocaine seized during his arrest, on the basis of alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court finds that while there was no breach of sections 8 or 9, and no breach of section 7 regarding body-worn cameras, there was a breach of section 10(b) due to delay in access to counsel.

However, the evidence is not excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not sufficiently serious to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court considered an application by Kenneth Hill to stay his charges for delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, following his conviction for aggravated assault and related offences.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that the pre-verdict delay was attributable to the defence, as Mr. Hill failed to appear for his trial after being inadvertently released from custody.

The post-verdict delay, related to a long-term offender application, was found to be reasonable and largely an exceptional circumstance, with only a short period of undue delay that did not breach the Charter ceiling.

The decision addresses a section 11(b) Charter application by Jordan Masters-George to stay proceedings due to delay in a complex, multi-accused drug prosecution.

The court found that while the net delay exceeded the 30-month ceiling set by R. v. Jordan, the delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, the Crown’s reasonable prosecution plan, and the absence of COVID-19-related delay.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident where the complainant, a co-worker, woke up naked in his bed with no memory of the preceding events.

The Crown alleged that the accused engaged in unprotected vaginal intercourse and other sexual touching without the complainant's consent.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, rejecting defence arguments that her memory loss was feigned or that her post-offence conduct suggested consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

This decision addresses three mid-trial applications in a first-degree murder case.

The Crown's application to read in preliminary hearing evidence of an evading witness under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code was granted, with the court finding that evasion of service constitutes refusal to testify.

The defence's application for a directed verdict on first-degree murder was dismissed, as the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of planning and deliberation for the jury to consider.

Finally, the defence's application to have self-defence left to the jury was granted, with the court determining there was an air of reality to the defence, even though the accused did not testify, based on the evolving circumstances of a second encounter with the victim.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Ralph George for possession of two loaded firearms and significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking on two separate occasions.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, public firearm possession, drug quantities indicating mid-level trafficking, a prior criminal record, and fleeing from police.

Significant mitigating factors were also weighed, such as the offender's difficult upbringing marked by trauma, abuse, systemic discrimination, negative police experiences, and sexual assaults in foster care, as well as Charter breaches during his arrest, his efforts in programming while in custody, positive rehabilitative prospects, and potential immigration consequences.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 20 years, while the defence proposed 12-14 years.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 14 years, reduced to 10.5 years after credit for pre-sentence custody, finding that a higher sentence would be "crushing" and undermine rehabilitation.