Toscano Roccamo

The plaintiff, a solar power installation company, sued the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) for misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiff alleged that the OPA unlawfully amended the microFIT Program rules without providing the required 90 days' notice, intentionally causing harm to the plaintiff's business.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the OPA did not engage in deliberate unlawful conduct or act with bad faith.

The court held that the OPA acted in good faith to balance ratepayer interests and implement Ministerial directives regarding renewable energy procurement.

Although the court assessed potential damages at $470,250, no liability was found.

The plaintiffs, corporate vehicle dealerships, sued the defendants for conversion, fraud, and conspiracy after a rogue wholesaler fraudulently sold 23 of the plaintiffs' vehicles to the defendant dealership, Sami's Garage.

The vehicles were categorized as missing/stolen, consigned, and stop-payment vehicles.

The court found that the missing vehicles were stolen, meaning the rogue wholesaler could not pass good title, rendering Sami's Garage liable in conversion for those vehicles.

However, for the consigned and stop-payment vehicles, the court held that the rogue wholesaler acted as a mercantile agent with ostensible authority.

Because Sami's Garage purchased these vehicles in good faith and without notice of the defective title, it acquired good title under the Sale of Goods Act and the Factors Act.

The plaintiffs' claims regarding the consigned and stop-payment vehicles were dismissed against Sami's Garage, though the rogue wholesaler and his associate were held liable.

Following a conviction for sexual assault, the applicant applied to reopen the case prior to sentencing to adduce fresh evidence.

The applicant alleged that the complainant had confessed to a family friend that the allegations were fabricated to secure a monetary settlement.

The court applied the Palmer/Kowall criteria and found the proposed fresh evidence lacked credibility, could have been adduced at trial with due diligence, and would not have affected the verdict.

The application to reopen the case was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and assault against his former spouse, alleged to have occurred in 2008 while both were stationed at a military base.

The allegations were not reported until 2014, following a contentious family law dispute over child support and daycare expenses.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused's evidence to be generally responsive and not materially impeached.

Conversely, the court found the complainant's evidence lacked reliability due to memory issues, internal inconsistencies, and evidence of animus related to the family law proceedings.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement of a 14-year-old complainant.

The complainant accompanied the accused on an overnight trip to Ottawa, where they shared a hotel room.

The complainant alleged the accused insisted she sleep in his bed and subsequently touched her breast and belly for a sexual purpose.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as unreliable and contradictory.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault, while the unlawful confinement charge was withdrawn.

Following a trial on liability for a motor vehicle accident where the deceased driver was found 80% responsible and the City of Ottawa and its bus driver 20% responsible, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought over $811,000 in costs and disbursements.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, including proportionality, the complexity of the case, and the results achieved.

The court reduced the plaintiffs' claimed costs due to excessive hourly rates for students/paralegals, duplication of effort, and excessive time spent on certain stages.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $527,065.25 in fees and $143,531.25 in disbursements.

Additionally, the court granted a Sanderson Order requiring the unsuccessful defendants to pay the costs of the successful defendant insurer directly.

The accused was charged with weapons offences after checking a bag containing a loaded BB gun and a belt buckle shaped like brass knuckles onto a commercial flight.

The court found that checking baggage constitutes an attempt to 'take on board' an aircraft under section 78 of the Criminal Code.

The court also held that the BB gun met the definition of a firearm and thus an offensive weapon, and the belt buckle functioned as a prohibited weapon.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, with a Kienapple stay entered on the first count.

The plaintiffs were injured when the SUV they were passengers in ran a red light and was struck by an OC Transpo bus.

The driver of the SUV was killed and admitted to be primarily at fault.

The plaintiffs sued the bus driver and the City of Ottawa, alleging the bus driver was also negligent.

The court found that the bus driver, despite having the right of way, owed a duty of care to avoid the collision.

The court held that the bus driver breached the standard of care of a professional driver by speeding, failing to adjust his driving for the snowy and slushy road conditions, and momentary inattention.

Relying on expert accident reconstruction evidence, the court concluded that but for the bus driver's negligence, the accident could have been avoided.

Liability was apportioned 80% to the SUV driver and 20% to the bus driver.

The plaintiff was injured when an employee of the defendant nightclub negligently discharged a firearm.

The plaintiff sued the nightclub for vicarious liability and breach of the Occupier's Liability Act.

The nightclub's insurer refused to defend the action, relying on a policy exclusion for bodily injury arising out of the ownership or use of a gun.

The nightclub brought a motion to compel the insurer to defend the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims in negligence and under the Occupier's Liability Act were not entirely derivative of the excluded conduct, and that the exclusion clause was ambiguous as to whether it applied to all insureds or only the one who committed the excluded act.

The plaintiff, a municipal official, moved for an interlocutory injunction to force the defendants to remove YouTube videos and comments that he alleged were defamatory.

The defendants had posted videos criticizing the plaintiff's handling of their building permit and site plan requirements for a new business location.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold for an injunction in defamation cases, which requires showing that the words are so manifestly defamatory that a contrary jury verdict would be perverse.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm, as any potential harm could be adequately compensated by damages.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cognitively delayed adult complainant.

The incidents allegedly occurred in the bathroom and kitchen of an apartment where both were guests.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the court found the core allegations corroborated by a witness and the accused's own admissions of uninvited touching.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cognitively delayed adult complainant.

The incidents allegedly occurred in the bathroom and kitchen of a relative's apartment.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant initiated contact and he only pinched her bottom.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found the testimony of the complainant and an eyewitness reliable despite minor inconsistencies.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

Following a summary judgment motion in a medical negligence action where the plaintiff was largely successful, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, which the court denied, finding the defendants did not act unreasonably in bringing the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $54,000 in partial indemnity costs after reducing the claimed hours for reasonableness.

The court also awarded the defendants $7,500 for their partial success on the motion and awarded Dr. Penning $12,000 for the dismissal of the action against him, with these amounts to be set off against the plaintiff's award.