K.P. Wright

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for multiple counts of assault and theft arising from an intimate relationship.

At trial, the judge engaged in a vetting procedure that excluded approximately 45 photographs the defence intended to use during cross-examination of the complainant to challenge her credibility and narrative of the relationship.

The summary conviction appeal judge found the vetting process was flawed, applied the wrong legal test for excluding defence evidence, and improperly curtailed the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.

Because the case turned almost entirely on the complainant's credibility, the error was deemed serious and the curative proviso was not applied.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction trial judge's decision to stay charges of impaired driving and over 80 due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 17 months, falling just below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters under the new Jordan framework.

The Crown argued the trial judge reversed the onus and failed to consider the defence's lack of initiative.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the transitional framework from Jordan, noting that defence initiative was not required for the period preceding the Jordan decision, and the trial judge properly considered the Crown's delay in disclosure and the overall context.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent on the basis that the Crown failed to prove he was presented to a breath technician 'as soon as practicable' following the breath demand.

On appeal, the Superior Court held that presenting an accused to a breath technician 'as soon as practicable' is not an essential element of a valid demand under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code for the purposes of a refusal charge.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a conviction entered.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging environmental contamination of the plaintiff’s property by petroleum hydrocarbons migrating from a neighbouring former gas station site.

The defendants argued the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act because it was commenced more than two years after the claim was discoverable.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known of the material facts supporting a claim by March 2012 through environmental investigations conducted during its due diligence period.

The later Phase II environmental report merely confirmed suspicions already known.

The court also rejected the argument that ongoing contamination constituted continuing damage that created a new limitation period due to lack of evidence of fresh damages.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action as out of time.

A dispute arose following the sale of business equipment and inventory under a written agreement.

The plaintiff sold chattels for a fixed price and agreed that the inventory would be counted and paid at invoice price, but the defendants refused to pay for the inventory, disputing the count and alleging breach of a subsequent non‑competition agreement.

The court found the purchasing corporation adopted the pre‑incorporation contract under s. 21 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act and that the individual defendant was not personally liable.

The court accepted the plaintiff’s inventory valuation and rejected the defendants’ competing count.

The non‑competition agreement was held invalid for lack of fresh consideration and because it was obtained under economic duress.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and age discrimination following termination after 16 years of employment.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and exercised its enhanced powers under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and the evidence supported the employer’s position that the termination resulted from a prolonged work shortage and financial decline leading to redundancy of the role.

The court also held that the 1998 employment contract remained valid and enforceable despite an invalid 2011 contract.

The motion was dismissed and the termination clause in the 1998 agreement governed the notice entitlement.

In a defamation action arising from a newspaper article, the plaintiff brought a motion seeking multiple forms of interlocutory relief, including an order requiring verbal negotiation of a discovery plan, written examinations for discovery, production records regarding access to a related statement of claim, removal of the allegedly defamatory article from a website, a further and better affidavit of documents, and amendments to pleadings.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel verbal negotiations and confirmed that parties may choose written communications regarding discovery planning.

The court also declined to interfere with the defendants’ right to conduct oral discovery and found no evidence supporting further documentary production.

Applying the heightened test for interlocutory injunctions in defamation matters, the court concluded the words complained of were not obviously defamatory and the pleaded defences were not clearly bound to fail.

The motion was largely dismissed, with only consent amendments to the plaintiff’s reply permitted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking court approval of a settlement in a personal injury action involving a minor plaintiff arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The settlement resolved claims against several municipal defendants responsible for roadway maintenance and resulted in dismissal of the action, including related third party claims.

Third parties opposed the settlement on the basis that they wished the municipality to remain in the litigation, but the court held they had previously chosen not to advance a third party claim and had provided no sufficient basis to reject the settlement.

After reviewing the supporting materials and affidavits, the court concluded the settlement was reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff.

The settlement was therefore approved and the action dismissed as against the settling parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for substitute service of a statement of claim and an extension of time for service under Rules 16.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action arose from a fatal pedestrian motor vehicle accident, but the defendants had not been served within the required six‑month period after issuance of the claim.

The court found the plaintiffs had made minimal efforts to locate and serve the defendants and had not demonstrated due diligence.

Applying the principles in Chiarelli v. Weins and considering prejudice arising from the delay, the court held that both presumed and actual prejudice existed, including the loss of key witnesses and impaired ability to pursue claims against other potentially liable parties.

The plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The motion for substitute service and extension of time was therefore dismissed.