Theft

The accused was charged with ten offences arising from a series of events over three days, including a home invasion, gas station robberies, vehicle thefts, and a police pursuit.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on clothing, stolen property, fingerprints, and tracking data.

The court applied the standard for circumstantial evidence, finding the accused guilty of the home invasion, vehicle thefts, license plate thefts, and failing to stop for police, as his guilt was the only rational conclusion.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of the gas station robbery and an attempted robbery, as the evidence left a reasonable doubt regarding his specific identity among multiple individuals present.

The plaintiff purchased an RV from the defendants and left it at their dealership for storage until his campsite was ready.

The RV was stolen from the dealership's lot.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence as a bailee.

The court found that the defendants were a gratuitous bailee and therefore only liable for gross negligence.

After reviewing expert evidence on the dealership's security system, the court concluded the defendants met the requisite standard of care and dismissed the action.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims of malicious prosecution, defamation, and fraud/theft relating to a saving circle and employment termination.

The defendants also sought default judgement on their counterclaim for theft.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for summary judgement.

The court granted partial summary judgement dismissing the malicious prosecution and defamation claims, finding no evidence that the police lacked independent discretion in laying charges or that defamatory statements were made to third parties.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial for the saving circle and employment monies claims due to credibility issues.

The court also set aside the noting of default on the counterclaim to avoid inconsistent findings at trial.

The accused, a police sergeant, was charged with theft over $5,000 and breach of trust after money and jewellery seized during a robbery investigation went missing from a temporary storage locker.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the accused's failure to follow property storage directives and his estranged wife's discovery of a police evidence bag containing cash under his bed.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, noting widespread non-compliance with property directives at the bureau and discrepancies in the cash found by the wife.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault and theft under $5,000, and pled guilty to failing to comply with a SOIRA order.

The offences occurred when the offender followed an intoxicated victim into her apartment building and sexually assaulted her in the stairwell, subsequently stealing her bank cards.

At the time of the offences, the offender was on probation for a prior sexual assault conviction.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 4 years and 2 months in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years of probation and ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including break and enter, assault, unlawful confinement, and theft, following a home invasion of a 76-year-old woman.

The victim was tied to a chair while her home was ransacked and her vehicle and wallet were stolen.

Although the victim could not identify the intruder, the accused was found in possession of her stolen credit cards within two hours of the offence.

Applying the doctrine of recent possession, the court inferred that the accused was the intruder and found him guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed from his conviction on two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance and three counts of break and enter a dwelling house and commit theft, as well as from his sentence of time served (585 days pre-sentence custody credited at 878 days).

The appellant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds, including claims that he did not understand the proceedings, was not provided with disclosure, and that his counsel negotiated a resolution without his instructions.

The Court of Appeal found all allegations lacked credibility based on the record of the plea inquiry, written instructions from the appellant to counsel, and the appellant's express waiver of a translator.

The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

The plaintiff, a long-term shift leader at a City of Toronto homeless shelter, was terminated for cause following allegations that he stole maintenance fees from vulnerable clients and issued fraudulent receipts.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, relied on false assumptions, and failed to prove theft or fraud on a balance of probabilities.

While the plaintiff erred in issuing two receipts to calm a client in crisis, this misconduct did not warrant dismissal.

The court awarded 18 months' reasonable notice, plus $65,000 in Wallace/Keays damages for the employer's unfair, insensitive, and bad faith conduct during the dismissal process, which caused the plaintiff mental distress and prolonged financial loss.

The appellant appealed her conviction for three thefts at Shoppers Drug Mart and her sentence of six months imprisonment plus two years probation.

The trial judge had found her guilty based on witness identification and surveillance video evidence, and not guilty of two thefts from No Frills.

The appellant argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons regarding identification, the commission of the offences, and her liability as a party to the thefts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's brief reasons were responsive to the issues raised and provided a sufficient basis for appellate review.

The court granted leave to appeal sentence and struck the victim surcharge requirement following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Boudreault, but otherwise upheld the sentence given the appellant's extensive criminal history.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his insurer for the theft of a $550,000 heirloom ring and a gold chain while on vacation in the Dominican Republic.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging insufficient proof and lack of cooperation, but expressly declined to plead fraud.

The court found the plaintiff had fully cooperated and proven his loss.

The court granted summary judgment for the value of the ring and chain, and awarded $50,000 in punitive damages due to the insurer's bad faith conduct in stringing the plaintiff along after secretly deciding to deny the claim.

The appellant was convicted of theft on the basis of circumstantial evidence and appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada following the Manitoba Court of Appeal's dismissal of his appeal.

The Court of Appeal had found no error in the trial judge's admission of opinion evidence given by witnesses, and concluded it was reasonable for the trial judge to find that the evidence as a whole excluded all reasonable alternatives to guilt.

The Supreme Court agreed with the majority's reasons in the Court of Appeal and dismissed the appeal.

The accused, a financial advisor, was charged with multiple counts of fraud, theft, misappropriation, and forgery relating to his handling of funds for 10 clients.

The Crown alleged that the accused received funds from clients to invest, but instead deposited them into his own accounts, retained them for extended periods, and provided forged documents to conceal his actions.

The court found the accused guilty on 33 of the 34 remaining counts, concluding that he intentionally retained client funds contrary to their directions, placing their financial interests at risk, and used forged documents to deceive them.

The appellant was convicted of theft over $5,000, break and enter, two counts of possession of property for the purpose of trafficking, and one count of possession of property obtained by crime.

He appealed his convictions on grounds that the trial judge failed to properly apply the W.(D.) test, applied stricter scrutiny to the defence case, provided insufficient reasons, and misapprehended evidence.

The appellant also argued that two convictions should be stayed under Kienapple as included offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most grounds of appeal but allowed the appeal in part, staying two convictions as included offences.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel a justice of the peace to issue process on a private information charging three police officers and a paralegal with forcible entry, theft, and unlawful interception of private communications.

The charges arose from an incident where the applicants were removed from their daughter's condominium.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the justice of the peace made no jurisdictional error in concluding that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case for any of the offences.

The accused, a former financial advisor, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000 after collecting approximately $12 million from 41 investors for supposedly low-risk real estate and corporate bond investments.

Instead of investing the funds as promised, the accused operated a Ponzi scheme, diverting the money to pay spousal support, fund his failing businesses, and make partial repayments to earlier investors.

The court found the accused's testimony to be entirely lacking in credibility and rejected the defence's forensic accounting evidence.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed.

The accused, a security guard at an RBC building, was charged with multiple offences including break and enter, theft, and mischief after 46 new Lenovo laptops went missing from a storage room.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the accused removing boxes from the storage room, obstructing a security camera, and Kijiji advertisements for the stolen laptops linked to the accused's phone number, address, and Facebook photos.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling house in Burlington with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification by the homeowner's son, who observed the intruder inside his bedroom and later identified the accused's vehicle.

The defence argued the identification was unreliable, particularly given the witness's observation of an accent that the accused did not possess.

The court found the witness credible and concluded the accused was the intruder, determining that the accused had likely modulated his voice to disguise it.

The presence of power tools in the accused's vehicle corroborated the theft of tools from the property.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for breaking and entering a dairy farmer's residence, committing theft, and related offences.

The defendants were charged with jointly breaking and entering and stealing property, possessing stolen property, and possessing a stolen GPS.

One defendant was additionally charged with robbery for physically assaulting the homeowner during the break-in.

The other defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon for throwing a rock at the homeowner.

The trial judge convicted both defendants on the break and enter and theft charges, and on possession of property stolen from the residence.

One defendant was convicted of robbery, the other of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

The charge regarding the stolen GPS was dismissed against both defendants due to insufficient evidence of knowledge of its stolen nature.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with 57 counts involving break and enter, theft, and assault.

Several counts were stayed or withdrawn by the Crown.

The justice found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on 25 counts, including break and enter, theft, assault causing bodily harm, and conspiracy.

The justice declined to commit on 23 counts due to insufficient evidence.

Additional counts were added for break and enter to Fincham Plaza mall, conspiracy to commit break and enter and theft, and counselling to commit theft in relation to stolen vehicles.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, leaving the scene of an accident, and theft of property following an incident on January 22, 2012.

The defendant was hired to transport a photo booth for two business partners.

A dispute arose over compensation.

When the defendant attempted to leave with the booth, a friend of the business partners placed himself on the hood of the vehicle.

The defendant drove slowly to escape, and the friend fell off and was injured.

The court found the defendant not guilty of all charges, accepting the necessity defence for the dangerous driving charge and finding the defendant had an honest colour of right claim regarding the booth.