Jim Koumarelas

The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, Robin Edith Smith, after she was violently assaulted by her former neighbour, Edward Cammack.

The decision details the history of the parties' relationship, the circumstances of the assault, the resulting physical and psychological injuries, and the impact on Ms. Smith's life.

The court found that the assault caused significant trauma, leading to Ms. Smith's relocation and ongoing mental health issues.

Damages were awarded for non-pecuniary loss, special damages (including moving and security costs), and future care.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

They argued the Deputy Judge erred by failing to inquire into the competence of their unlicensed agent under s. 26 of the Courts of Justice Act, and that they received ineffective assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no duty on a Deputy Judge to conduct such an inquiry absent proper grounds, which were not present here.

The court also noted the appellants failed to give notice of the appeal to the agent, precluding the ineffective assistance argument.

The plaintiff and third party brought motions for summary judgment against the defendant regarding an equipment lease for a commercial printer.

The defendant had stopped making lease payments, alleging the printer was defective, but had signed agreements containing broad exclusion clauses.

The court found the exclusion clauses were neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy, noting the defendant was a sophisticated commercial entity that chose not to read the contracts.

The court granted summary judgment for both the plaintiff and third party, awarding damages and costs, and strongly criticized the defendant's failure to file a factum.

The Crown applied pursuant to section 117.05 of the Criminal Code for an order to forfeit a collection of 16 shotguns seized by Toronto Police Service and for an ancillary general weapons prohibition order.

The seizure arose from a domestic dispute involving the respondent's wife reporting concerns about his mental state and suicide risk after discovering escort service numbers on his phone.

The respondent was apprehended under the Mental Health Act, assessed, and released.

At the hearing, the respondent provided evidence of his responsible gun ownership, compliance with all regulatory requirements, and mental fitness.

The court found that the Crown had not established on a balance of probabilities that it was "not desirable" in the interests of safety for the respondent to possess the firearms and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against guarantors of a corporate loan following default under a small business term loan agreement.

The responding guarantors argued they believed each was liable only for one-quarter of the guaranteed amount and claimed they had not received independent legal advice before signing the guarantees.

The court held that absent fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, or a valid non est factum defence, the bank had no obligation to ensure the guarantors obtained independent legal advice.

The court further found that the relationship between the bank and the guarantors was purely commercial and did not give rise to any duty of care.

Because the guarantees contained entire agreement clauses and the alleged misunderstanding did not render the documents fundamentally different from what was signed, the defences failed and summary judgment was granted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop for allegedly running a red light.

The court found insufficient evidence of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's driving was normal apart from the disputed intersection turn, he exhibited no signs of impairment such as unsteadiness, and the only indicators were odour of alcohol and red eyes.

The court determined there were no objectively reasonable grounds for arrest for impaired driving, rendering the breath demand unlawful.

Consequently, the refusal to provide a breath sample was not an offence.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear the matter pursuant to section 140(4)(e) of the Courts of Justice Act.