Bruce Thomas

The accused were charged with numerous offences related to dog fighting, firearms, and drug trafficking.

They brought a pre-trial application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total time from charge to the anticipated end of trial was calculated at 30 months and 28 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the delay was primarily caused by late disclosure and the Crown's ill-advised decision to join a co-accused late in the proceedings.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, the court granted the application and stayed all charges.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to reintroduce damages related to five shipping containers, which had been struck by a consent order five years earlier.

The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing the limitation period had expired, constituting non-compensable prejudice, and that the amendment was an abuse of process and barred by issue estoppel.

The court found that while the amendment was not an abuse of process or barred by issue estoppel, the expiration of the limitation period created non-compensable prejudice.

The motion for leave to amend was dismissed.

The offender, an on-duty police officer, was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after colliding with another vehicle while responding to an emergency call at 178 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

The defence sought an absolute discharge, arguing the officer's motive mitigated his moral culpability.

The court found that while a discharge was in the offender's best interests, it was contrary to the public interest due to the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

A conviction was registered, and the offender was sentenced to a $2,500 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to include accident benefit claims that were the subject of a failed mediation and a subsequently withdrawn arbitration.

The defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing the amendments were barred by the amended Insurance Act, which requires disputes initiated after April 1, 2016, to proceed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The court agreed, finding that allowing the amendments would circumvent the legislative changes.

The motion to amend was dismissed, though the plaintiff was permitted to pursue the claims at the Tribunal and continue litigating her original statement of claim.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder and arson after breaking into the apartment of a pregnant woman to steal her underwear.

When discovered, he brutally murdered the victim and subsequently set the apartment on fire to destroy evidence.

The court weighed the extreme brutality of the unprovoked attack, the vulnerability of the pregnant victim, and the severe post-offence conduct against the offender's guilty plea and lack of prior record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a 22-year period of parole ineligibility for the murder, and a concurrent 5-year sentence for arson.

The accused, a police officer, was responding to an emergency call and drove his police cruiser at 178 km/h in a 50 km/h residential zone.

He collided with a civilian vehicle making a left turn, causing bodily harm to the civilian driver.

The court found that while the civilian driver failed to pull over, the accused's excessive speed in a residential area with multiple hazards was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable police officer in the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award regarding a real estate commission dispute on the basis that the arbitration committee provided no reasons for its decision.

The court found that the total absence of reasons violated section 38 of the Arbitration Act and common law requirements.

Because there was no record of the arbitration proceedings and no assurance the committee members could recall their reasoning, the court declined to remit the matter back to the committee and instead set aside the award.

The plaintiffs sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a summary judgment motion, despite the action having already been set down for trial.

The proposed motion would only address claims against two of the defendants for breaches of share purchase and consulting agreements.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the proposed summary judgment motion would not eliminate any parties, would not shorten the trial given the interconnected factual matrix, and would risk inconsistent verdicts and prejudice regarding the defendants' counterclaim.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a change of venue under s. 599 of the Criminal Code.

They argued that a fair trial in Sarnia was impossible due to the small community size, extensive pre-trial publicity regarding their alleged sexual practices, the overwhelming community response to the victim's death, the victim's father's employment at the local courthouse, and inadequate courthouse facilities.

The court granted the application, finding that the cumulative effect of these factors created a reasonable probability of prejudice and impacted the applicants' fair trial rights.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, and driving over 80 causing death and bodily harm, following a fatal intersection collision.

The court found that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and that his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit, rejecting defence arguments regarding the maintenance and operation of the breathalyzer instrument.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the charges relating to causing death and bodily harm, finding that the collision was caused by the other driver proceeding into the intersection when it was unsafe to do so.

The accused was convicted of the lesser included offence of impaired driving, with the over 80 charge stayed.

The defendant, APP Capital Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for breach of an employment contract and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, the former CFO of the co-defendant corporation, claimed entitlement to compensation under a 2008 employment agreement following the sale of the corporation.

The court applied the framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and found that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed regarding whether the moving party was bound by the 2008 agreement.

The court declined to use its fact-finding powers due to incomplete documentary discovery and the potential for inconsistent verdicts, dismissing the motion.

Two applications were brought to determine the beneficiary of approximately $264,000 in segregated funds and a RIF annuity (the Disputed Funds) left by the deceased.

The deceased had designated a charitable foundation as the beneficiary of the funds, but later executed a will containing a general insurance clause leaving all insurance proceeds to her nephew.

The charitable foundation sought to rectify the will or interpret it to exclude the Disputed Funds, arguing the deceased intended the funds to go to charity.

The court held that the Disputed Funds were insurance policies governed by the Insurance Act, and the will's insurance clause effectively re-designated the beneficiary to the nephew.

Applying Robinson Estate v. Robinson, the court refused to admit third-party extrinsic evidence to contradict the clear language of the will, which the deceased had reviewed and approved.

Two competing law firms brought motions for carriage of a proposed securities class action against Armtec Infrastructure Inc. and its directors and underwriters, alleging misrepresentations in a prospectus and press release.

The court evaluated the competing actions based on the nature and scope of the causes of action, the proposed class definitions, the named defendants, and the representative plaintiffs.

The court granted carriage to the Simmonds plaintiffs, finding their approach to the class definition and damages to be simpler and more cohesive, and their representative plaintiffs to possess significant business acumen.

The competing Locking action was stayed.