Kenneth L. Campbell

The accused was charged with sexual assault, criminal harassment, and two counts of breach of probation relating to his former intimate partner.

The complainant alleged the accused raped her after his parents stayed overnight at her home, and later harassed her with text messages.

The accused testified the sexual activity was consensual and the text messages were attempts to rekindle the relationship, supported by evidence from his father and a family friend.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant's evidence unreliable and inconsistent, and the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty on all charges.

The applicant, wanted in the United States for murder, sought a disclosure order against the Attorney General of Canada for information regarding the United States' involvement in his prior prosecution and conviction for the same murder in Jordan.

The applicant hoped to use this information to argue double jeopardy, abuse of process, and a violation of s. 7 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, holding that it was premature and that the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure from foreign authorities.

The court noted that double jeopardy issues and related disclosure requests are properly within the purview of the Minister of Justice during the surrender phase of the extradition process.

The appellant appealed a conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly relied on circumstantial evidence to support police identification, and effectively reversed the burden of proof.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge’s reasons adequately explained the rejection of defence evidence and that no material evidence was misapprehended.

The court further found the identification evidence was properly assessed in light of corroborating circumstantial evidence, including ownership of the vehicle and its return to the appellant’s residence shortly after the incident.

The judge also concluded that the burden of proof remained properly on the Crown throughout the trial.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $24,442.42 in damages for personal injury, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants argued the plaintiff should be denied costs under Rule 76.13 for failing to use the simplified procedure.

The court found it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have commenced and continued the action under the ordinary procedure, as the damages claimed were originally well above the $50,000 threshold.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $36,771.98, reducing the requested amount to account for duplication of efforts caused by the plaintiff's team approach to litigation.

The appellant appealed a custodial sentence imposed following convictions for mischief and two counts of breach of probation arising from conduct at a medical clinic.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission of time served and instead imposed an additional custodial sentence resulting in an effective six‑month term of imprisonment.

The appellate court held that joint submissions on sentence are entitled to significant deference and should only be rejected where the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found the sentencing judge erred in principle by rejecting the joint submission without adequate justification and by imposing a sentence that was demonstrably unfit and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The appeal was allowed and the custodial sentence was reduced to time served, with the probation order remaining in force.

The defendant grandmother moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims of vicarious liability and negligent entrustment after her grandson used her van to run over and kill a pedestrian in a public park following a drug deal.

The court granted the motion, finding that a public park is not a 'highway' under the Highway Traffic Act, precluding vicarious liability.

The court also dismissed the negligent entrustment claim, holding that the grandmother owed no duty of care to a pedestrian in a park and that the grandson's criminal use of the vehicle as a weapon was not reasonably foreseeable.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking exclusion of a firearm seized during execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The defence argued that the Information to Obtain failed to establish reasonable grounds for the warrant and that the evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court held that the issuing justice could properly have concluded that reasonable grounds existed based on corroborated confidential informant information and police surveillance showing apparent hand‑to‑hand drug transactions.

The court further held that even if a Charter breach had occurred, the firearm would be admitted under the s. 24(2) framework from R. v. Grant because police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and central to the prosecution.

Following the dismissal of an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $85,000.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted because the dismissal of the action turned on the plaintiff’s inability to establish a required element of the torts—namely that the criminal proceedings terminated in his favour—rather than any judicial determination that the allegations of malice were baseless.

Although the plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with a court‑ordered timetable for motion materials, the delay caused no prejudice and did not justify elevated costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs for the motion and action together.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $62,240.49 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

Following the dismissal of its application for the enforcement of letters rogatory, the applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of law.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the applicant was a commercial entity pursuing its own private interests in foreign litigation, not a public interest litigant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful respondent but reduced the quantum claimed from $32,647.71 to $18,189.46, noting that the respondent had already received a substantial costs award on an earlier, nearly identical application.

The plaintiff and defendant are competitors in the industrial safety products business, owned by two brothers.

The defendant registered the domain name 'dentecsafety.ca', which was highly similar to the plaintiff's 'dentecsafety.com', and redirected internet traffic to its own website for 5.5 months.

The plaintiff sued for passing-off, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The court found that the defendant committed the tort of passing-off, as it possessed goodwill, made a misrepresentation causing likely confusion, and caused actual or potential damage.

The court awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages.

The plaintiff sued the defendant fitness club for a finger amputation injury sustained while using a vertical leg press machine.

The plaintiff alleged his foot slipped off the machine's platform because he had stepped in a puddle of water near a water fountain.

The court found the defendants breached their duty under the Occupier's Liability Act because there was no evidence their maintenance system was actually implemented on the day of the accident.

The court also found the plaintiff was 50% contributorily negligent for failing to ensure his shoes were dry before using the heavy weight machine.

Damages were assessed at $48,884.84 and apportioned equally, resulting in a judgment of $24,442.42 for the plaintiff.

Investors brought an action against their accountant and a lawyer alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract arising from losses on second mortgage investments after mortgagor defaults.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment arguing there was no causal link between any alleged breach and the losses, particularly because the investors obtained independent legal advice and increased their investments thereafter.

The court held that equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duty requires a causal connection between the breach and the loss.

The evidence demonstrated the losses resulted from the plaintiffs’ own investment decisions and not from any alleged non‑disclosure.

The court also found that a later agreement to renew the mortgage was conditional upon refinancing of a first mortgage and therefore unenforceable when that condition precedent failed.

The defendant moved to stay an Ontario action on the basis that Vermont was the more appropriate forum for a dispute arising from an allegedly unpaid US$3.5 million promissory note connected to hotel investments in Vermont and New Hampshire.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the defendant resided in Ontario, triggering a presumptive connecting factor under the framework established in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda.

The defendant failed to rebut the presumption or demonstrate that Vermont was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The court emphasized that both parties resided in Ontario, the alleged default occurred in Ontario, the defendant’s assets were located in Ontario, and requiring the plaintiff to litigate in Vermont would create unfairness because he was barred from entering the United States.

The motion to stay the Ontario proceeding was dismissed.

The applicant brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking to have her former spouse declared a vexatious litigant and to obtain a restraining order.

The evidence demonstrated nearly two decades of repetitive and unsuccessful litigation, including attempts to relitigate issues already decided, interfere with corporate affairs, and pursue proceedings without reasonable grounds.

The court reviewed the governing principles for declaring a litigant vexatious and concluded that the respondent’s persistent litigation, failure to comply with court orders, and improper use of proceedings constituted abuse of process.

The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant and prohibited him from commencing or continuing proceedings without leave, and also granted a restraining order prohibiting contact with the applicant.

The parties appealed a master’s decision concerning defence medical examinations in a personal injury action involving a minor who sustained serious injuries after falling from an apartment window.

The master granted leave for a second motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend a defence neuropsychological assessment, with the plaintiff’s mother required to participate by questionnaire and interview.

The master refused to order an in‑home future care cost assessment by a nurse practitioner.

On appeal, the court held the master made no reviewable error, finding the neuropsychological assessment was justified to respond to the plaintiff’s expert evidence and that the second motion was not barred by res judicata or abuse of process.

The refusal to order the in‑home assessment was upheld because the proposed assessor was not a statutory “health practitioner” and the evidence did not demonstrate necessity.

The applicant, an American pharmaceutical company, sought to enforce amended letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court to compel testimony and documentary evidence from the respondent, a federal Crown corporation, for use in foreign litigation.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that it enjoyed Crown immunity.

The court held that the presumption of Crown immunity under s. 17 of the federal Interpretation Act prevented the enforcement of letters rogatory against a Crown agent, as the provincial Evidence Act does not bind the federal Crown.

Furthermore, the court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the legal standard for enforcing letters rogatory, as the evidence sought was not necessary for trial and had already been obtained through an Access to Information Act request.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former police officer, brought an action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation after criminal charges against him were withdrawn following his resignation from the police service pursuant to a negotiated resolution with the Crown.

The defendants, including several police officers and the police services board, moved for summary judgment.

The court held that one essential element of both torts is that the criminal proceedings must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff.

Because the charges were withdrawn as part of a bona fide resolution agreement requiring the plaintiff’s resignation, the termination was not legally considered to be in his favour.

As a result, the plaintiff could not establish a necessary element of either tort and the action had no reasonable prospect of success.

The plaintiffs sued a contractor and its principal for breach of a contract to construct a turn-key restaurant in a leased strip-mall space.

The court found the defendants agreed to complete the project by a specified deadline, failed to meet that deadline and two later written guarantees, and were responsible for multiple construction and equipment deficiencies, including electrical work, ventilation, fixtures, seating, and sprinkler upgrades.

The court rejected the claim for lost business profits as unsupported, but enforced a weekly liquidated damages clause and awarded thrown-away operating expenses for the pre-addendum delay period.

On the counterclaim, the defendants were permitted only to set off the contractual $10,000 holdback; all alleged extras were dismissed.

Judgment issued for the plaintiffs for $46,199.10 plus pre-judgment interest.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a Kansas default judgment obtained against the respondent for breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and sales losses.

The respondent resisted enforcement on the grounds that the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud and in breach of natural justice.

The court held that a real and substantial connection existed between Kansas and both the dispute and the respondent.

The alleged non‑disclosure of insurance proceeds did not constitute fraud and arguments regarding the validity of damages improperly attempted to relitigate the merits.

The Kansas procedures, including shorter response timelines and different default judgment rules, nonetheless satisfied principles of natural justice.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which alleged breach of a settlement agreement, civil conspiracy, and interference with economic relations arising from the defendants' implementation of new real estate rules that effectively prohibited the plaintiffs' flat-fee brokerage model.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded all necessary elements for breach of contract, predominant purpose conspiracy, unlawful means conspiracy, and interference with economic relations.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the claims would fail, and that the individual defendants could be held personally liable despite being officers or directors of the corporate defendants, as the pleadings alleged they acted maliciously, outside their authority, and for their own personal business interests.