J. Klein

The court sentenced James William Schwalm to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 20 years after he pleaded guilty to the second degree murder of his wife, Ashley Schwalm.

The decision details the planning and execution of the murder, the subsequent cover-up, and the devastating impact on the victim’s family and children.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the calculated nature of the offence, the absence of prior criminal record, and the guilty plea, ultimately finding that a parole ineligibility period above the usual range for intimate partner homicides was warranted.

This decision concerns the sentencing of three defendants involved in a home invasion that resulted in a death and injury.

Trevor Kotzma and Michael Rodgers pleaded guilty to manslaughter, while Alexander Nicholas Mahon-Fernandes pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the home invasion, the violence inflicted, and the profound impact on victims.

Mitigating factors, such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, were also weighed.

For Mahon-Fernandes, his lack of prior criminal record and significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail were particularly noted.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions for Kotzma and Rodgers, and imposed a penitentiary sentence for Mahon-Fernandes, slightly less than the Crown's request, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence despite his first-offender status.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the investigating officer gave inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence connecting the accused to the apartment where the alleged murder weapon was found.

The defence applied for a mistrial.

The trial judge dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's case on identity was overwhelming even without the knife evidence, and that a strong mid-trial instruction to the jury to disregard the inadmissible evidence was sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The accused was subsequently convicted by the jury.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to extend the set down date for trial, both parties sought costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting that the defendant's conduct, including failing to disclose the transfer of a property and misleading the plaintiff about available assets, materially contributed to the delay.

The court declined to award costs for the defendant's abandoned dismissal motion.

The plaintiff brought motions to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery in an action concerning the purchase of a commercial real estate portfolio.

The Dream Defendants also brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer refusals.

The court applied the principles of relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the defendants to answer certain questions relating to financial models and marketing efforts, but dismissed requests for information regarding the post-closing use of sale proceeds and prior unrelated transactions.

The plaintiff was ordered to provide its legal position on an 'as is where is' clause.

Following the successful dismissal of a motion to approve a settlement agreement in CCAA proceedings, the successful lien claimants sought costs against the applicants, Tarion, and the applicants' shareholder.

The court declined to award costs against Tarion because the lien claimants failed to provide adequate prior notice of their intention to seek costs against it.

However, the court awarded costs against the applicants' estate, reasoning that the estate and its creditors benefited from the lien claimants' successful opposition, which preserved security funds.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 total on a partial indemnity basis, payable only to the extent the applicants actually receive the benefit of the security.