C. Braid

The accused was charged with aggravated sexual assault, uttering death threats, and choking following a violent attack on a stranger walking home at night.

The attacker dragged the victim, repeatedly punched her, strangled her to the point of unconsciousness, and sexually assaulted her.

The court found the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt based on compelling DNA evidence and the victim's physical description.

The court also found the victim was wounded and her life was endangered by the strangulation.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender, acting as the Executive Director of a charitable organization, defrauded her employer of $8,491.64 by using a corporate credit card for personal expenses and uttering forged documents.

Following a jury conviction, the court considered the offender's significant related criminal record, the breach of trust, and the impact on the vulnerable consumers of the charity.

The court sentenced the offender to three years in custody, along with restitution, a fine in lieu of forfeiture, and a 20-year prohibition on employment involving authority over the property of others.

The offender, owner of a payroll company, was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and using forged documents after failing to remit client funds to the government and keeping the excess.

The total loss was $366,056.21.

The court found that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount, given the significant breach of trust and scale of the fraud.

The offender was sentenced to three years in custody, along with restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The applicant and respondent are brothers and co-executors of their father's estate.

The applicant sought a declaration that five joint bank accounts held by the deceased and the respondent were held in trust for the estate.

The respondent argued the accounts were gifted to him to equalize lifetime gifts made to the applicant.

The court found the respondent failed to corroborate his evidence under s. 13 of the Evidence Act and failed to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust.

The court also dismissed arguments that the claim was statute-barred or precluded by a release, as the applicant was unaware of the accounts when the release was signed.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant half the value of the accounts.

The accused, owner of a payroll services company, was charged with fraud, theft, and uttering forged documents.

She was alleged to have over-deducted Employer Health Tax from clients and failed to remit funds to the Canada Revenue Agency, keeping the excess funds in her trust account for personal use.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as improbable and contradictory to documentary evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding she intentionally defrauded clients of approximately $366,000 and forged bank documents to conceal the missing remittances.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's action for a trip and fall on a sidewalk was barred due to insufficient notice under s. 44(10) of the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff had emailed the municipality eight days after the fall, and her roommate provided additional location details the next day.

The court found the notice was sufficient, as it allowed the municipality's adjuster to identify the area and take photographs.

The court also found no prejudice to the municipality and dismissed the motion for summary judgment, ordering the municipality to pay $2,000 in costs.

The offender was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of probation after fleeing from police during a traffic stop.

He was found with 2.5 ounces of cocaine and had a significant criminal record including three prior convictions for the same offence.

The court emphasized specific and general deterrence, sentencing the offender to 30 months in custody for the drug offence and 90 days concurrent for the breach of probation.

The plaintiff brought an action against the law firm that represented his former spouse in family law proceedings, alleging delay, distress, and dishonesty.

The defendant law firm moved to strike the statement of claim under Rule 21.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff as opposing counsel.

The court also found the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, characterizing it as a collateral attack on prior family court and Law Society decisions.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendant on a full indemnity basis.