Jeylan Sara Davies

The applicant, wanted in the United States for identity theft and other offences, was committed for extradition and sought bail pending the Minister of Justice's decision on surrender.

The applicant proposed a release plan involving a surety and electronic monitoring.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet his onus of showing he would surrender into custody, given his history of fleeing the United States, failing to attend court in Canada, and the overwhelming case against him.

The appellant, Octavio Gomez, appealed his convictions for impaired operation and over 80 mg blood alcohol concentration.

The appeal raised two Charter issues: whether his s. 10(a) right to be informed of the reason for detention was breached when asked to exit his vehicle, and whether his s. 9 right against arbitrary detention was breached due to a 3.5-hour delay in release from custody.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that neither Charter right was breached.

The court also opined that even if breaches occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

S.D. pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm on her 12-year-old daughter and assault on her four-year-old son.

The Crown appealed the sentencing judge's decision to grant a conditional discharge with three years probation, arguing that the judge prioritized rehabilitation over denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Superior Court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no error in principle and that the sentence, while exceptionally lenient, was not demonstrably unfit given the unique and extensive mitigating circumstances, including the offender's mental health crisis and significant stressors.

The appellant, David Zomou, appealed his convictions for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The appeal raised issues of reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge, arbitrary detention, sufficient grounds for arrest for public intoxication, and the voluntariness of the appellant's utterances.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or arbitrary detention, and upheld the lawfulness of the arrest for public intoxication.

However, the court found that the trial judge erred in relying on inadmissible hearsay evidence to determine the voluntariness of the appellant's statements, which were crucial to the impaired operation conviction.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered solely for the impaired operation charge, while the refusal conviction was upheld.

This decision addresses the costs award following the dismissal of the defendants' motion to set aside a default judgment.

Royal Bank of Canada, as the successful party, sought substantial indemnity costs based on contractual terms in the loan guarantees.

The court affirmed the contractual right to costs but exercised its discretion to reduce the requested amount.

The reduction was based on the disproportionality of counsel's seniority to the tasks performed, excessive time dockets for routine work, and the lack of merit in some of RBC's responding arguments.

A total of $29,561.96 inclusive of HST was awarded, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff bank regarding a defaulted commercial loan and guarantees for a franchise restaurant.

The court applied the five-factor test from Intact Insurance and found that the defendants did not move promptly, lacked a plausible excuse for the default, and had no arguable defences on the merits.

The defendants' arguments regarding improper service, forged signatures, ambiguous guarantee terms, and commercially improvident sale of collateral were all rejected.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought to enforce a personal guarantee against Sunny Bhasin, a director of Surje & Company Inc., for a corporate line of credit.

Default judgment had already been granted against the corporate defendant.

Bhasin argued that he was misled into signing the personal guarantee, claiming misrepresentation and non est factum.

The court found no misrepresentation by the Bank's employees, noting that the signed agreements clearly indicated personal liability and that Bhasin, a well-educated businessman, was careless in not reading the documents.

The court granted judgment in favour of RBC, enforcing the personal guarantee.