J. Wilson

The offender was sentenced following a jury conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, uttering threats, and assault with a weapon arising from a prolonged violent assault against the complainant in the offender’s apartment.

The evidence included physical injuries, corroborating forensic evidence, a recording captured by the complainant during the assault, and a whispered 911 call made after the offender fell asleep.

The court considered aggravating factors including the prolonged and violent nature of the sexual assaults, use of a weapon, psychological harm to the complainant, and evidence of a prior incident involving aggression toward a woman.

Applying sentencing principles under s. 718 of the Criminal Code and reviewing comparable authorities, the court concluded that denunciation and deterrence were paramount.

A global custodial sentence of five years was imposed, less credit for pre‑sentence custody, together with ancillary orders.

The applicant towing company brought a motion seeking to prevent a police services board from executing a towing services contract with another bidder following a request for quotation process.

The board had disqualified the applicant’s bid as non‑compliant for failing to provide required documentation including a letter of credit in the bidder’s name, enforceable leases for equipment and pound facilities, and proper licences.

The court found that the deficiencies were substantial and that the board acted properly and consistently in enforcing the mandatory pre‑conditions in the procurement process.

As the bid was correctly deemed non‑compliant, the applicant lacked standing to challenge the contract award.

On a Rule 21 motion to strike in an international air carriage action, the court determined whether the Montreal Convention governed claims arising from in-flight conduct, disembarkation, police detention, and alleged illness.

The court held article 17 applied because the pleaded incident formed a continuous chain beginning on board and continuing through disembarkation, and qualified as an accident under the Convention.

Claims for psychological harm, mental distress, and punitive or exemplary damages were held unrecoverable under article 29 and settled jurisprudence where no compensable bodily injury was pleaded for those heads.

The claim for bodily injury based on alleged severe bronchitis was permitted to proceed.

The motion was therefore granted in part with the remaining claim limited to bodily injury damages.

Following settlement of the underlying civil action pursuant to an offer to settle and acceptance, a dispute arose between the parties regarding costs.

The plaintiff indicated an intention to bring a motion for summary judgment regarding the costs issue and did not consent to the pre‑trial judge determining the matter.

The court noted that although the judge had presided as pre‑trial judge, costs had not been discussed during the pre‑trial.

The endorsement records the existence of the dispute but does not determine the costs issue.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a lengthy self-represented statement of claim alleging conspiracy and misconduct by police and public officials.

The plaintiff alleged that police had conducted a long-standing covert campaign of harassment, including tampering with computers, contaminating groceries with chemical hazards, and collaborating with landlords to render him homeless.

The claim against the moving defendants was based on allegations that they failed to investigate complaints about these actions.

The court held that the pleadings disclosed no viable cause of action in law even if the pleaded facts were assumed to be true.

Finding that no amendment could cure the defects and that the allegations were incapable of sustaining a legal claim, the action against the moving defendants was dismissed without leave to amend.

The maternal grandmother appealed a decision confirming the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court and the legality of the apprehension of two children in Quebec by the Ottawa Children's Aid Society (CAS) in collaboration with Quebec child protection authorities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the children were habitually resident in Ontario, the cross-border apprehension was a practical and legal solution in the children's best interests, and the Ontario court had jurisdiction to hear the protection application.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation following the accused’s conviction for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young child.

The defence conceded that the statutory criteria for dangerous offender status were met but argued that a determinate penitentiary sentence followed by a ten‑year long‑term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

The court reviewed extensive expert psychiatric and psychological evidence, actuarial risk assessments, and the offender’s lengthy history of sexual offences against children.

Applying the post‑2008 Criminal Code framework under s. 753(4.1), the court held that an indeterminate sentence must be imposed unless there is a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The evidence established only a speculative hope of successful treatment and demonstrated that the offender would require lifelong structure and supervision to manage risk.

The accused, a co-owner of a temporary employment agency, was charged with fraud over $5000, forgery, and using forged documents.

The Crown alleged that the accused defrauded the company by adding phantom former employees to the payroll draft, intercepting their cash pay envelopes, and forging their signatures on cash receipts.

The accused was also charged with forging letters from his business partner to provide to his conditional sentence supervisor to facilitate personal activities.

The court rejected the admission of similar fact evidence regarding a prior fraud conviction.

Applying the W.D. test, the court rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and accepted the evidence of the business partner and former employees.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused perpetrated the fraud and forged the documents.