Jennifer Woollcombe

Following a judge-alone criminal trial involving a complainant with whom the accused had been in a brief intimate relationship, the court convicted on six counts arising from incidents over approximately one week, including sexual assault, assault, and forcible confinement.

The decision turned entirely on the complainant’s credibility and reliability, as she was the only witness.

Applying the governing principles on subjective consent, mens rea for sexual assault, and the caution against myths and stereotypes in sexual assault adjudication, the court accepted the complainant’s explanations for delayed reporting, continued contact, and apparently friendly messages after the incidents.

Despite some inconsistencies on peripheral details, the court found the material allegations proved beyond a reasonable doubt and entered convictions on all counts.

The respondent, a not-for-profit corporation, brought a motion for an injunction requiring the applicants, former employees, to return allegedly misappropriated confidential documents and restraining their further use.

The respondent also sought a sealing order for the court file.

The applicants argued they were whistleblowers exposing corporate wrongdoing.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the respondent failed to establish it would suffer irreparable harm.

The court also dismissed the request for a sealing order, concluding it was not necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important interest and that the public interest in open court proceedings outweighed the benefits of confidentiality.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 after borrowing over $1.5 million from various acquaintances, ostensibly for short-term mortgage loans, and subsequently declaring bankruptcy.

The Crown alleged the accused deceived the lenders and gambled the funds away.

The Superior Court of Justice acquitted the accused, finding that while he likely took advantage of the lenders and had a gambling problem, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the specific funds borrowed were gambled away or used for purposes other than what was represented.

The accused was tried on a 12-count indictment alleging historical sexual offences against a child complainant over several years.

The court reviewed the complainant’s evidence, multiple inconsistencies, the defence evidence concerning lack of opportunity, and the theory of fabrication arising from an alleged relationship between the accused and the complainant’s mother.

Applying the criminal burden of proof and the W(D.) framework, the court found the complainant’s evidence compelling in some respects but not sufficiently reliable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Canadian Tire allegation was expressly rejected, and broader concerns about opportunity and reliability left the court with a reasonable doubt on all counts.

The accused was acquitted on every count.

The plaintiffs were involved in two motor vehicle accidents, one in Georgia and one in Ontario.

They commenced a single action in Ontario against all defendants.

The defendants involved in the Georgia accident, who resided in the United States, brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that none of the presumptive connecting factors from Van Breda applied to the Georgia defendants.

The court declined to recognize a new connecting factor based solely on the presence of an Ontario co-defendant for a separate accident.

The action against the Georgia defendants was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 34 months and 9 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and case complexity were exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court found the pandemic was a discrete exceptional event and deducted 187 days, bringing the net delay to just under 28 months.

The court declined to find the case particularly complex and held that a stay was not warranted for the sub-ceiling delay, as the Crown's refusal to consent to a judge-alone re-election was reasonable given the joint trial context.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for the recovery of $45,000.

The individual defendant, an officer of a corporate client, withdrew the funds with only one signature, despite knowing the account required two signatures.

The bank mistakenly permitted the withdrawal and subsequently reimbursed the corporate client.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the individual defendant was not an innocent recipient and was unjustly enriched by the mistake of fact.

Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount plus interest, but the claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault and his sentence of a nine-month conditional sentence followed by 15 months of probation.

The offences involved a 14 or 15-year-old former counselling client.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, applying the principles in W.(D.), and finding the conduct amounted to sexual assault.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings reasonable and his application of the law correct.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and a discharge was contrary to the public interest.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought an application for the disclosure of police disciplinary records relating to two officers involved in the investigation.

The court held that the disciplinary file of an officer who would not be called as a Crown witness was not first party disclosure and did not meet the 'likely relevant' threshold for third party records.

For the undercover officer who would testify, the court ordered the police to ascertain whether specific additional disciplinary records existed, but otherwise dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter after finding the search warrant invalid.

The trial judge had excised a paragraph from the Information to Obtain (ITO) because it lacked support for the affiant's belief that the suspect was a collector, rendering the warrant invalid.

However, the trial judge admitted the evidence, finding the police conduct was inept but not blatant, and the balance of factors favoured admission.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant framework and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, charged with two counts of first degree murder and one count of aggravated assault arising from two separate shooting incidents hours apart, applied to sever the counts.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding a strong factual and legal nexus between the counts, including the use of the same firearm and an alleged confession linking the two homicides.

The court concluded that the interests of justice required a joint trial, as evidence from one homicide would likely be admissible in the trial of the other even if severed.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for assault arising from an altercation at a shopping mall.

She argued the trial judge erred by inferring her nails caused the complainant's facial injuries, misapprehending her evidence regarding the word 'disengaged', and treating the fact that the parties were strangers as an aggravating factor on sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inference about the injuries was reasonable, the misapprehension of evidence was peripheral and did not cause a miscarriage of justice, and there was no reversible error in the sentencing analysis.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of first-degree murder, arguing the preliminary inquiry justice committed jurisdictional error by relying on insufficient circumstantial evidence of identity.

The reviewing judge found no jurisdictional error, concluding that the preliminary inquiry justice properly engaged in a limited weighing of the evidence, including DNA on a glove, video surveillance, clothing similarities, and association with the co-accused, to determine that a reasonable inference of guilt was available.

The application was dismissed.

During a first-degree murder trial, proceedings were halted for several months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Upon assessing the jury's availability to resume the trial in the fall, the court conducted individual inquiries with several jurors.

The court discharged two jurors due to undue hardship related to childcare, schooling, and employment concerns exacerbated by the pandemic.

As only nine jurors remained, and the parties did not consent to continue without a jury, a mistrial was declared.

The appellant appealed his conviction for an "over 80" offence, alleging a s. 9 Charter violation (arbitrary detention/overholding) and a s. 11(b) Charter violation (unreasonable delay).

The court found a s. 9 breach due to police "benign neglect" in assessing continued detention but determined that breath samples should not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the breach was too remote from the evidence gathering.

However, the court found a s. 11(b) breach, concluding that judicial deliberation time for interlocutory motions counts towards the Jordan ceiling, and the net delay of 20.5 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling without exceptional circumstances.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting certain text messages from the complainant as *res gestae* statements and improperly using them in the reasons for judgment.

The court found no error in admitting the texts as relevant to the complainant's state of mind immediately after the alleged assault, and as *res gestae* statements for their truth, given that the timing and situation negated the possibility of concoction.

The court also determined that the trial judge did not improperly use the texts to bolster the complainant's credibility, but rather considered them appropriately in the context of chronology and emotional state.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of wilfully causing unnecessary pain to his dog by spraying it with bear spray and assaulting it, contrary to s. 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay statements from his mother for their truth.

The appeal court reviewed the trial judge's application of the principled exception to the hearsay rule, specifically regarding substantive reliability as per R. v. Bradshaw.

The court found that while the trial judge made some errors in identifying corroborative evidence, the overall analysis correctly concluded that the hearsay statements were admissible due to compelling circumstantial evidence negating untruthfulness or mistake.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought an urgent order for the respondent to comply with a 2016 final order regarding joint custody and access of their two children.

The respondent had unilaterally withheld the children since March 19, 2020, citing COVID-19 safety concerns and the children's alleged wishes to remain with her.

The court found the matter urgent, rejecting the respondent's "self-help" remedy.

It determined that the applicant was capable of ensuring the children's health, safety, and educational needs, and found no evidentiary basis for the respondent's allegations of manipulation or lack of support.

The court ordered the children's immediate return to the applicant and strict compliance with the existing access schedule.

The applicants, facing multiple drug and firearms charges, brought a pre-trial motion alleging various Charter violations during their arrest and the subsequent searches of a vehicle and a residential unit.

The court dismissed the claims regarding arbitrary arrest, search incident to arrest, strip search, and right to counsel, finding the police had reasonable grounds and acted lawfully.

However, the court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the residential unit contained materially misleading and inaccurate information.

After excising the misleading details, the court concluded there were insufficient grounds to issue the warrant, resulting in a section 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearms and drugs found in the unit under section 24(2), citing the seriousness of the police negligence in drafting the ITO.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial motions to edit the videotaped police statements of two co-accused before they were played for the jury.

The moving parties sought to excise references to fears of reprisal, the interviewing officer's opinions on the credibility of another witness, and portions of other witnesses' statements played during the interviews.

The court dismissed most of the requested edits, finding that the passages were necessary to provide context for the accused's responses and that any potential prejudice could be cured by proper limiting instructions to the jury.

A few specific passages lacking probative value and carrying potential prejudice were ordered excised.