J. Paul R. Howard

The appellants appealed their summary convictions and sentences for various regulatory offences under the Fish Inspection Act and Food and Drugs Act relating to the commercial importation of fish products.

The appellants argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, permitted an abuse of process, failed to assist the self-represented accused, and that their right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings, that the trial judge provided reasonable assistance, and that the delay was largely attributable to the appellants themselves.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding no violation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, specifically claiming that his statement 'I don't know who' to call should have prompted police to facilitate his understanding, and that police improperly directed him to call a specific lawyer.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence, as the appellant had indicated he understood his rights and was not directed to call a specific lawyer.

The plaintiff, Front Construction Industries Inc., brought an action against the defendant, 38-44 Chatham Street East (2012) Limited (the "Owner"), for payment of an unpaid holdback and two claims for extras related to a construction project.

The Owner counterclaimed for significant delay damages, alleging Front Construction's failure to diligently perform work caused a loss of a long-term leasing opportunity.

The court found in favour of Front Construction, allowing its claims for the unpaid holdback and both extras, and dismissed the Owner's counterclaim for delay, concluding that Front Construction was not responsible for the alleged delay or the tenant's failure to occupy the premises.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with a developmentally delayed and visually impaired resident at a rest home.

The central issue was whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The court found that the complainant's initial statements to staff indicated the encounter was consensual, and she only alleged assault after her mother arrived and reacted angrily.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent, resulting in an acquittal.

The applicant father sought to restore a previous parenting schedule (Friday after-school to Monday morning) for the two children (aged 9 and 6).

The respondent mother brought cross-motions to restrict the father's parenting time, initially seeking no overnight access, but later proposing a compromise of Saturday 10:00 a.m. to Sunday 8:00 p.m.

The court found that the children were exhibiting troubling behaviours, including self-harm by the younger child, which constituted a compelling reason to disturb the status quo.

The court also found that the father had exposed the children to adult conflict, including manipulative behaviour during a phone call.

The court dismissed the father's motion to restore the prior schedule and granted the mother's compromise proposal for an interim parenting schedule, along with mutual orders prohibiting disparagement and discussion of litigation in the children's presence.

Strathan Corporation sought leave to amend its statement of claim in a second action (Second Strathan Action) to include a new claim for breach of statutory duty causing environmental contamination under the Environmental Protection Act.

The defendants opposed, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, untenable at law, and an abuse of process given a prior action (First Strathan Action) already addressing environmental contamination.

The court dismissed Strathan's motion, finding the new claim was a distinct cause of action, statute-barred by the two-year limitation period (as Strathan knew of the environmental claim since 2009 when it commenced the First Strathan Action), and constituted an abuse of process by attempting to graft a duplicative claim onto a separate action.

The court also rejected the argument that the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The applicant sought to enforce a trial judgment and costs award through garnishment.

The respondent disputed the interest calculations and the overall amounts owing, arguing that his settlement proposal should have stopped interest accrual.

The court dismissed the respondent's dispute, confirming the applicant's interest calculations for both prejudgment and postjudgment interest on the trial judgment and costs award.

The court also clarified the effective date of judgments and the power to amend for mathematical errors.

The respondent was given credit for payments made to the Sheriff's Office despite delayed release to the applicant.

The appellant, David Monzon, appealed his conviction for assault and the associated sentence.

The appeal court found that the trial judge committed several errors of law, including failing to provide sufficient reasons for judgment, particularly regarding credibility findings and the legal justification for self-defence.

The trial judge also misapprehended evidence by finding the appellant was the aggressor without supporting evidence and erred in making a judicial notice about the removal of an earring without considering the appellant's explanation.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, Guy Baltzer, appealed his conviction for assault under s. 266 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had convicted him for pushing his wife into a fence after locking her out of their home in sub-zero temperatures.

The appeal raised four grounds: misapprehension of evidence regarding application of force, failure to consider de minimis non curat lex, apprehension of bias due to judicial comments, and misapplication of the burden of proof or failure to conduct a proper W.(D.) analysis.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in any of the grounds.

The court affirmed the trial judge's factual findings and legal reasoning, emphasizing that the de minimis principle does not apply to intentional domestic violence, and that the trial judge correctly applied the burden of proof and credibility assessment.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim and enforce alleged minutes of settlement.

The plaintiffs argued no binding settlement was reached and that summary judgment was unavailable without a statement of defence.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 2.03 to allow the motion despite the lack of a statement of defence, given the plaintiffs had waived the requirement.

However, the court found the evidence regarding the plaintiffs' acceptance of the settlement equivocal, indicating a genuine issue for trial.

Due to evidentiary deficiencies and credibility issues, the court declined to grant summary judgment and instead ordered a mini-trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) to determine whether a binding settlement agreement was reached.

The court determined the costs of two motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent father was successful on a motion for the advancement of funds and was awarded costs of $22,967.05.

The respondent was unsuccessful on a motion to adjourn the trial, and the applicant mother was awarded costs of $7,631.38 for that motion.

The court ordered a set-off, resulting in a net payment of $15,335.67 by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant mother sought ongoing and retroactive child support.

The respondent father claimed he had the children for at least 40 per cent of the time during a two-year period, entitling him to a shared custody adjustment under section 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and resulting in an alleged overpayment.

The court found the father failed to meet the 40 per cent threshold, relying on the mother's contemporaneous access records over the father's reconstructed calendars.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support of $1,595 per month and retroactive child support arrears of $25,464.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, and the respondent husband brought a cross-motion for interim child support.

The wife claimed she was unable to work due to medical conditions, while the husband argued she was employed by her new partner's law firm.

The court dismissed the wife's motion, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case for entitlement on either compensatory or non-compensatory grounds, largely due to insufficient medical evidence and failure to make proper financial disclosure.

The court also dismissed the husband's motion for child support, declining to impute income to the wife at the interim stage given the conflicting affidavit evidence.

The accused, a 19-year-old first offender, was convicted of break and enter, assault, assault with a weapon, possession of stolen property, and possession of break-in instruments following two incidents in one morning.

He broke into an occupied residential home and later broke into a pickup truck, where he was confronted by the owner and engaged in a physical struggle while brandishing a knife.

The court emphasized individual deterrence and rehabilitation for a youthful first offender but noted the seriousness of breaking into an occupied dwelling.

The accused was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment and 18 months' probation.

The accused was charged with common assault, assault with a weapon, possession of stolen property, break and enter, and possession of break-in instruments following two incidents on the same morning.

The first incident involved a break and enter at a residence where property was stolen.

The second incident involved the accused breaking into a pickup truck, where he was confronted by the owner, leading to a physical altercation involving a knife.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible, applied the doctrine of recent possession, and found the accused guilty on all counts.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following an 18-year relationship.

The respondent father sought joint custody.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding the parties lacked the ability to communicate effectively for joint custody.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $940 per month and spousal support of $1,300 per month for 8.5 years, based on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds.

The court also ordered an equalization payment of $21,309.05 to the mother via a pension roll-over.

The appellant appealed his conviction for careless use of a firearm.

After experiencing multiple break-ins, the appellant armed himself with a loaded BB gun to confront suspected trespassers on his property.

He chased a suspect down a public alleyway and banged on a neighbour's door while holding the firearm.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person and that the defences of defence of property and citizen's arrest were not available because his actions were not reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, having successfully dismissed the plaintiffs' action, sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing public interest litigation, novelty of issues, and impecuniosity, and challenged the quantum.

The court found the litigation was a private dispute, not public interest, and rejected the impecuniosity argument due to lack of evidence.

However, the court reduced the defendant's claimed costs, noting the defendant's conduct contributed to the litigation's length through "uneven enforcement measures" and finding several claimed amounts excessive or improper.

The court fixed costs at $30,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability following a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the defendant driver negligent for driving too fast for conditions, losing control, and crossing into oncoming traffic.

The registered owner and beneficial owner (parents of the driver) were found vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act.

Claims of contributory negligence against the plaintiff driver were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The matter was ordered to proceed to trial for assessment of damages and the threshold issue under the Insurance Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissing her human rights complaints against her former employer.

The Tribunal had dismissed the applications as an abuse of process after the applicant and her counsel unilaterally refused to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the judicial review, finding no evidence of bias or institutional bias.

The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the applications for abuse of process was reasonable and justified given the applicant's deliberate failure to attend the hearing.