Jonathan Dawe

This motion sought judicial approval of a settlement for a minor plaintiff who suffered injuries at a marina.

While the $85,000 settlement was deemed reasonable given the plaintiff's full recovery, the court found the proposed 35% contingency fee of the plaintiff's counsel to be excessive and unenforceable.

The court reduced the legal fees to 20% of the net recovery, increasing the amount paid to the minor plaintiff.

Robert Lepp sought to vary his judicial release order, challenging a broad prohibition on mentioning complainants online (Term 6) and restrictions on internet use (Term 7).

The court, applying R. v. St-Cloud and R. v. Antic, found Term 6 to be opaque, overbroad, and not necessary for public protection, striking it entirely.

Term 7 was varied to allow unsupervised internet use for employment and legal purposes, and supervised use for other purposes, recognizing Lepp's rights as a self-represented litigant, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Non-contact terms (Terms 4 and 5) were also adjusted to remove one complainant's name while re-introducing another's due to new charges.

The applicant, Andre Tully, facing serious drug and gun charges with a significant criminal record, applied for bail after 18 months in custody, citing potential trial delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court addressed jurisdictional issues regarding the bail application, ultimately proceeding as either a s. 520 bail review or exercising ex officio powers under s. 515 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the proposed strict house arrest bail plan with three sureties and electronic monitoring adequately addressed secondary ground concerns regarding public safety.

Furthermore, the court considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant factor under the tertiary ground, weighing the elevated risk of infection in custody, potential trial delays, and the public interest in reducing the remand population against the gravity of the offences.

Bail was granted with strict conditions.

This endorsement addresses the costs of two successful motions brought by the plaintiffs, Barry Picov and Picov Farms Ltd. The first motion sought to amend their Statement of Claim to substitute Robar Residence Corporation as plaintiff, and the second sought to set aside an ex parte costs order against them in favour of Genserve Systems Inc. The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for both aspects of their motion, finding that while the plaintiffs' counsel bore some responsibility for the initial error and evidential record, the defendants' opposition was not entirely justified, particularly Genserve's stance on setting aside the ex parte order.

Total costs of $19,689 were awarded to the plaintiffs, apportioned among the defendants.

The appellant, De Shen, appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The trial judge had found him guilty of impaired driving but not guilty of driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

On appeal, the appellant argued that his Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) were infringed, and that the trial judge erred in assessing the evidence of impairment by dismissing the possibility of illness as speculative.

The court found that the police lawfully detained the appellant under the Highway Traffic Act, suspending his s. 10(b) rights at the roadside.

It also found that the appellant failed to establish a proper evidential basis for his claim that his s. 10(b) rights were infringed at the police station regarding counsel of choice.

While the trial judge erred in law by dismissing the illness defence as speculative due to lack of evidence, the appellate court applied the curative proviso, concluding that there was no reasonable possibility the verdict would have been different given the overwhelming evidence of impairment by alcohol.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision asserting jurisdiction over s. 810 Criminal Code peace bond applications based on alleged misconduct in Greece, and alternatively, for insufficient particularization of the location of the alleged misconduct.

The court dismissed the applications, holding that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to issue s. 810 peace bonds to prevent future harm in Canada, even if the underlying conduct occurred abroad, as the purpose is preventive, not punitive.

The court also found that the particulars provided were sufficient for fairness in a peace bond context, distinguishing it from criminal prosecutions.

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.

X.C., charged with sexual assault, sought directions on whether he needed to bring a s. 278.93 application under the Criminal Code to adduce WeChat text messages with the complainant, D.Z., at trial, and on the timing of any such application.

The court analyzed the Bill C-51 amendments to ss. 276, 278.1, and 278.92, distinguishing between messages with and without sexual content, and assessing the complainant's reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court ruled that some non-sexual messages and messages discussing past sexual activity directly related to the charge did not require pre-screening.

For other sexual messages, pre-screening was required, but the application could be brought mid-trial after the complainant's testimony, to protect the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

ATV Farms sought certiorari to quash search warrants and production orders, and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed, following a CFIA investigation into alleged mislabelling of produce.

The court found reasonable grounds for specific mislabelling offences related to US-grown turnips (Counts 1-4) but not for broader, unparticularized allegations (Count 5).

The Information to Obtain (ITO) contained inaccurate and misleading statements regarding a prior incident, which, once corrected, undermined the grounds for Count 5.

The court held that the broad search warrants and production orders could not be severed and were therefore unlawful, infringing ATV Farms's s. 8 Charter rights.

The appellant appealed his conviction for accessing child pornography, seeking to set aside his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant alleged counsel failed to review a police statement video and provided erroneous advice regarding the mandatory minimum sentence.

The court found counsel's actions and advice were deficient but concluded these deficiencies did not result in a miscarriage of justice, as the appellant's plea was effectively ratified after he learned the correct mandatory minimum sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Shamar Bowen Soares, was charged with six counts of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following his arrest and a strip search that revealed crack cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl.

The primary defence was a Charter challenge to the lawfulness of the arrest and search.

The court found that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for arrest based on surveillance and informant tips, thus no Charter breach occurred.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of possession of crack cocaine for trafficking and all fentanyl-related charges, due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of fentanyl in the mixture.

However, he was found guilty of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of crack cocaine.

The applicant, ATV Farms, sought certiorari to quash search warrants executed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and a declaration that its s. 8 Charter rights were infringed.

The CFIA had seized documents based on alleged mislabeling of produce.

The Crown opposed, arguing the matter should be heard by a trial judge if charges were laid.

The court addressed the preliminary issue of whether to hear the application at this stage, concluding that the overall interests of justice favoured allowing the application to proceed.

This decision was based on the applicant's claim of reputational and financial harm and its decision to seek only declaratory relief, not the return of seized documents, which mitigated concerns about interfering with the ongoing investigation.

The Applicant, charged with gun and drug offences, sought a bail review after being detained by a Justice of the Peace.

The court conducted a de novo review, finding that the initial bail hearing had materially misapprehended the proposed release plan.

The court assessed the revised bail plan under the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

It found the Applicant's parents suitable as sureties, despite minor inconsistencies in their testimony, and deemed the proposed house arrest with a security system sufficiently robust to address public safety concerns.

The court also considered the strength of the prosecution's case, including potential Charter defenses, and concluded that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was granted, and the Applicant was ordered released on conditions.

The applicant, Mohamed Aden, sought a bail review after being detained following a bail hearing for robbery and gun offences.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances existed, specifically regarding a modified bail plan with additional sureties (his mother and aunt) that could not be presented at the initial hearing due to interpreter unavailability and a perceived ruling by the Justice of the Peace.

The court found the defence's decision to proceed with a weaker plan initially was legitimate and reasonable, allowing the new evidence.

On review, the court assessed the new bail plan against the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

It found the strengthened surety plan, involving older and more responsible family members, adequately addressed public safety concerns and maintained confidence in the administration of justice, despite the seriousness of the charges and the reverse onus.

The applicant's release on house arrest bail was granted, though a requested work exception was denied at that stage.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought partial summary judgment against Yorktown Motors and Nisan Paranthaman.

RBC had financed Paranthaman's purchase of a Mercedes-Benz from Yorktown, which was later discovered to be "re-VINned" and potentially stolen.

RBC's claim against Paranthaman was to be dismissed, but it sought judgment against Yorktown based on the Loan Program Dealer Agreement (LPDA), arguing Yorktown breached representations and warranties, making it liable regardless of fault.

Yorktown disputed RBC's interpretation of the LPDA and argued that granting partial summary judgment would be inappropriate given the ongoing multi-party litigation involving crossclaims and third-party claims against other auto dealers, an individual, and the Crown, which could lead to inconsistent findings.

The court dismissed RBC's motion for summary judgment, finding it premature due to insufficient evidence establishing the vehicle was stolen and the significant risk of inconsistent factual findings at a subsequent trial.

The defendant, Justice Uagbae Okojie, was charged with importing heroin and using a forged document.

He pleaded not guilty to both.

The court found him guilty of using a forged document based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

For the importing charge, the court analyzed the actus reus and mens rea of importing, relying on Bell v. The Queen and R. v. Foster.

The court concluded that the actus reus of importing was complete when the drugs cleared customs, which occurred before Okojie's involvement in picking up the package.

Furthermore, even if Okojie's actions constituted aiding importing, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the drugs originated from outside Canada.

Consequently, Okojie was found not guilty of importing heroin.

The applicant, Athrin Deko, sought a bail review after being detained on gun and drug charges.

The court addressed the threshold question of whether sufficient grounds existed for a de novo review of his detention under R. v. St-Cloud.

The applicant argued the Justice of the Peace misapprehended the evidence regarding his proposed bail plan, specifically the supervision arrangements by his parents who worked opposite shifts.

The court found that the Justice of the Peace, likely influenced by Crown counsel, misunderstood the details of the bail plan, leading to an erroneous conclusion about the adequacy of supervision.

This material misapprehension of evidence was deemed to satisfy the St-Cloud threshold for review, impacting both secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The matter was adjourned for a full bail review hearing.

The defendant, W.P., was charged with five counts including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and uttering a death threat, against an eight-year-old boy, C.C. The trial judge assessed the credibility and reliability of C.C.'s evidence, noting inconsistencies, the problematic manner in which police elicited allegations through leading questions, and the malleability of C.C.'s narrative.

The court applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the special considerations for child witnesses but ultimately finding C.C.'s evidence unreliable.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.