Karen Maureen McArthur

The plaintiff sought a contempt order against the defendant corporation and its director for repeated failure to comply with court orders to answer undertakings from a judgment debtor examination.

Despite multiple adjournments and assurances, the undertakings remained incomplete.

The court declared the defendant in breach of the orders but, exercising restraint, deferred an immediate contempt finding.

It granted the defendant one final opportunity to comply by a specified date, failing which the contempt motion would proceed.

The court also ordered the defendant and its director to pay costs to the plaintiff.

Marianna Riossi, a high school teacher, pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation and sexual interference involving two students aged 15 and 16.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of trust, lengthy duration, extensive sexual activity, manipulation, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included a late guilty plea, no prior criminal record, pro-social life, family support, remorse, and strong rehabilitative prospects.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offenses.

A global sentence of four years imprisonment was imposed (two years consecutive for each count), along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a 5-year s. 161 order with specific prohibitions.

The appellant, Sean Gibbs, appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary and uninformed due to mental illness exacerbated by segregation, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's plea was voluntary and informed, as he understood the nature and consequences of the plea.

The court also found that trial counsel's assistance was not ineffective, as the alleged deficiencies did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The defendant was convicted of impaired driving, drive over 80, and dangerous driving, and acquitted of fail to remain.

Following conviction, the defendant's new counsel brought an application to reopen the trial to introduce new evidence regarding an alleged sexual assault, potential ineffective assistance of prior counsel, and the defendant's alleged confusion during cross-examination.

The court declined to reopen the trial, finding no merit to the application and emphasizing that the authority to grant a mistrial post-conviction should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances and in the clearest of cases.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm and threatening death following an incident in a Toronto laneway.

The defendant, driving a sports utility vehicle, encountered three pedestrians leaving a nightclub.

After the complainant tapped on the defendant's vehicle window, the defendant exited his vehicle and struck the complainant in the face, causing a severe laceration requiring eight sutures.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant had advanced aggressively toward him.

The court rejected the defendant's account and found that the complainant was attempting to flee the situation, not attack the defendant.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault causing bodily harm and dismissed the threatening death charge.