Joe Giuliana

Following the release of the court's written endorsement on the appeal, the appellant settled the issue of costs with several respondents.

The court ordered the appellant to pay the remaining respondent, Zanzibar Tavern Inc., costs of the appeal fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondents for damages related to his HIV infection, which he alleged was linked to a sponsorship undertaking given to the federal government.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments regarding exceptions to the limitation period raised for the first time on appeal.

Furthermore, the Court found no evidence establishing a causal link between the government's actions and the appellant's infection.

In a joint first‑degree murder trial arising from a gang‑related shooting, the court considered whether the accused had put his character in issue through testimony denying gang affiliation and explaining incriminating letters written while in custody.

The court held that the accused’s narrative about his upbringing and alleged reluctance to join a gang implicitly asserted good character and therefore opened the door to cross‑examination on prior criminal conduct and gang‑related activity.

The court also ruled that certain previously redacted portions of letters written by the accused from custody could be admitted after reconsideration of a pre‑trial ruling, because the accused’s testimony materially altered the probative value of the evidence and risked misleading the jury.

The court concluded that the probative value of the additional passages outweighed their prejudicial effect and that severance of the co‑accused was not required.

The appellant was convicted of marijuana production, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity after police executed a search warrant at her residence.

The police breached the front door without knocking and announcing their presence, which the trial judge found violated s. 8 of the Charter.

However, the trial judge admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the police acted in good faith and exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the admission of the evidence, finding no error in the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis.

The 15-month sentence was also upheld as fit for a large-scale grow operation.