Jora Singh Kuner

This criminal trial concerned charges against Johnathan Cox and Steven Cox related to sex trafficking, procuring, advertising sexual services, financial benefit from sexual services, and aggravated assault.

The complainant (C) alleged Johnathan initiated her involvement in the sex trade, managed her activities, and took her earnings, as well as physically assaulting her.

Steven, Johnathan's father, was accused of facilitating C's sex work by renting hotel rooms and paying for advertisements.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and largely reliable, while rejecting Johnathan's evidence as unbelievable.

Steven's evidence was found conflicted, acknowledging his efforts to help C but also his knowledge and facilitation of her sex work.

Johnathan was found guilty on all counts except one procuring charge (over 18), while Steven was found guilty only of advertising sexual services, being acquitted of procuring and financial benefit charges due to a lack of specific intent to facilitate the purchase of sex.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the house was sold.

The Board upheld the eviction without making factual findings about the side agreement or explaining its legal consequences.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's failure to provide reasons or consider the real substance of the transaction under section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act rendered the decision unreasonable and incapable of meaningful review.

The matter was remitted to a different Board member.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy based on an N11 agreement.

The tenants argued the written agreement was subject to an oral side agreement allowing them to stay until the property was sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by concluding the N11 was binding without making factual findings about the side agreement or providing adequate reasons.

The matter was remitted to a different Member of the Board for a new hearing.