K. Gill

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking and importation offences along with seven co-accused, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was approximately 32.5 months.

The court calculated the actionable delay to be 8 months and 11 days, well within the Morin guidelines, particularly given the complexity of the case and the need to accommodate counsel for multiple co-accused.

The court also found that the applicants failed to establish any specific prejudice resulting from the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession of Schedule I substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police seized significant quantities of methamphetamine, cocaine, MDMA, GHB, and ketamine on two occasions, including while the accused was on bail.

The court considered the seriousness of commercial drug trafficking and the aggravating factor of reoffending while on bail against substantial mitigating factors including rehabilitation, addiction treatment, employment, and community support.

While the defence sought a conditional sentence, the court held that denunciation and general deterrence required a penitentiary sentence.

A global sentence of five years’ imprisonment was imposed before credit, reduced to three years and five days after credit for pre‑trial custody and strict bail conditions.

Following a five‑day hybrid trial concerning governance disputes within a religious corporation, the court had previously set aside the admission of new members, the election of directors, and the appointment of officers, and imposed conditions for a court‑ordered members’ meeting under s. 297 of the Corporations Act.

The parties subsequently made competing claims for costs.

Applying Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles from appellate authorities on proportionality and fairness, the court assessed the degree of success and the parties’ conduct.

The judge found that both factions contributed to the corporate dysfunction that generated the litigation and unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

Concluding that neither side could properly be regarded as successful, the court declined to award costs.

Members of a Sikh temple incorporated under the Ontario Corporations Act brought an action challenging the admission of 23 new members and the election of directors following a disputed board meeting and special members’ meeting.

The court found that the board meeting at which the new members were admitted had been convened using misleading notice and that opposing directors had been led to believe the meeting would not occur due to mediation efforts.

The admission of the new members was therefore conducted in bad faith and declared null and void.

Because those members participated in a subsequent members’ meeting, quorum was lacking and the election of directors and subsequent board appointments were also invalid.

The court issued extensive declaratory relief restoring the prior membership and board composition and ordered governance reforms, including a monitor, audits, training, and conditions before a court‑ordered members’ meeting could be held.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs against corporate plaintiffs who had commenced a $25 million breach of contract action relating to an option agreement concerning several properties.

The defendant demonstrated that the plaintiffs had outstanding unpaid costs orders totalling more than $61,000 from earlier litigation involving substantially similar issues and the same defendant.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not established impecuniosity or demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, noting potential res judicata concerns and a possible limitations defence.

Delay in bringing the motion did not bar relief because the litigation had largely been inactive and the delay was partly attributable to the plaintiffs.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $25,000 as security for costs covering documentary discovery and examinations for discovery, failing which the action would be stayed.