K.A. Gorman

The plaintiff brought an action for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a wet surface near a private cottage driveway.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had no jurisdiction over the area.

The plaintiff opposed the motion as premature because examinations for discovery had not yet occurred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that granting summary judgment before the plaintiff had the opportunity to explore historic ownership and maintenance through discovery would run an extreme risk of prejudice.

The offender, a teacher, was found guilty of sexual exploitation of a student.

At sentencing, the offender brought a Charter challenge arguing that the mandatory minimum sentence of one year under s. 153 of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the breach of trust, grooming, and post-offence conduct.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months in jail followed by 12 months of probation, along with ancillary orders.

The 80-year-old accused was convicted of sexual interference involving a 9-year-old victim whom he tutored.

The Crown sought 12 months in jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court noted the accused's severe medical issues and the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in a custodial setting.

Applying the recent decision in R. v. Sharma, which struck down the prohibition on conditional sentences for offences with a 14-year maximum penalty, the court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, finding that incarceration would likely be a death sentence for the accused.

The applicant, charged with possession of oxycodone and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded legal counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide full and complete disclosure of her financial circumstances, noting substantial unexplained deposits and gambling expenses in her bank records.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her right to a fair trial would be compromised without counsel, as the trial judge has a duty to assist a self-represented accused.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented accused brought a Corbett application to exclude cross-examination on his extensive criminal record, which included 94 convictions.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the trial was largely a contest of credibility.

The court balanced the probative value against the prejudicial effect, noting the accused had many convictions similar to the offences for which he was being tried.

The court ordered the redaction of convictions prior to 2000, impaired driving convictions, flight from peace officer, and certain driving disqualified convictions to ensure procedural fairness.

Following a prior decision released August 19, 2015, the court addressed the issue of costs.

After reviewing written submissions from both parties, the court determined that the successful applicant was entitled to a costs award.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs fixed in a lump sum amount.

The order required immediate payment.