K. Stewart

The plaintiff, a Korean corporation, was the victim of a phishing scam and wired funds to an account controlled by the defendants.

The plaintiff sued multiple defendants for fraud and related claims.

Three groups of defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1).

The court found that the plaintiff was a foreign corporation with no assets in Ontario and failed to prove impecuniosity with robust evidence.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in installments, totaling $210,000 across three phases.

The accused, Sheng Hu, was found guilty after trial of multiple charges, including offering to transfer a restricted firearm without authorization, several counts of attempted possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and fraudulently personating another individual to obtain firearms.

The court considered mitigating factors such as the accused's youth, lack of prior criminal record, documented mental health challenges (mild intellectual disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, early psychotic disorder), and the unsophisticated nature of his attempts, which never resulted in the actual acquisition of firearms.

Aggravating factors included the multiple attempts and the dangerous nature of the firearms sought.

The Crown sought a 3-year jail sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed concurrent conditional sentences totaling 15 months, followed by 18 months of probation, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA sample order, finding that the accused's responsibility was significantly mitigated by his mental health and the low gravity of his unsophisticated efforts.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a physical altercation with another shelter resident.

The accused initially acted in self-defence when the victim punched a pregnant woman and then kicked the accused.

However, after the victim was taken to the ground and rendered defenceless, the accused continued to punch her repeatedly for 45-60 seconds while the victim was covered in blood and bystanders were shouting for the accused to stop.

The court found the accused's response became unreasonable once the victim was subdued and defenceless.

The court also found that the victim's initial consent to the fight was vitiated by the significant change in the nature of the altercation, as the victim could not reasonably have consented to being pinned down and repeatedly punched while defenceless.

The defendant was charged with impaired care and control of an automobile after being found asleep in a parked vehicle at a McDonald's parking lot in Newmarket on August 26, 2018.

The Crown presented evidence of the defendant's impaired state through observations by McDonald's staff, EMS personnel, and police officers.

The defendant testified that she had consumed alcohol only after parking the vehicle and that any impairment was the result of "bolus drinking" occurring after she had ceased to have care and control.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence and found that she was impaired at the time she drove through the McDonald's drive-through and continued to be impaired thereafter.

The court found the defendant guilty of impaired care and control.

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempting to possess a restricted firearm (Colt 45) under section 92(3) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, a 19-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record, attempted to purchase the firearm from a legal gun owner through communications and meetings with an undercover police officer.

The transaction was not completed as the defendant was arrested at the agreed point of sale with cash in his pocket.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 24 months.

The court imposed a 20-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, followed by 24 months probation.

The applicant, Mohamed Aden, sought a bail review after being detained following a bail hearing for robbery and gun offences.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances existed, specifically regarding a modified bail plan with additional sureties (his mother and aunt) that could not be presented at the initial hearing due to interpreter unavailability and a perceived ruling by the Justice of the Peace.

The court found the defence's decision to proceed with a weaker plan initially was legitimate and reasonable, allowing the new evidence.

On review, the court assessed the new bail plan against the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

It found the strengthened surety plan, involving older and more responsible family members, adequately addressed public safety concerns and maintained confidence in the administration of justice, despite the seriousness of the charges and the reverse onus.

The applicant's release on house arrest bail was granted, though a requested work exception was denied at that stage.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following an alleged incident at a fraternity house party on March 31-April 1, 2017.

The complainant alleged she was unconscious and therefore incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse.

The defendant maintained the complainant was conscious and consented to multiple instances of sexual intercourse.

The trial turned on credibility assessment and the capacity to consent.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to significant inconsistencies between her testimony and corroborating evidence, particularly regarding her demeanor and conduct the morning after the alleged assault.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in her blood exceeded the legal limit.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the Approved Screening Device demand and that the breathalyser instrument was operated improperly, thereby rebutting the presumption of accuracy.

The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds for the ASD demand based on observed signs of impairment and the accused's admission of alcohol consumption.

While the court found that the qualified technician improperly operated the Intoxilyzer by performing the calibration check too soon and failing to review printouts, the court determined that the Crown had satisfied the burden of establishing reliability of the results based on the subject test record and the technician's credible explanation for the initial calibration anomaly.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused were tried on 35 counts of break and enter and related offences involving commercial establishments across Ontario between May and October 2013.

The Crown relied on physical surveillance, GPS tracking data from a rental vehicle, forensic evidence (paint analysis and tool mark examination), and video evidence.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of attempted break and enter and possession of break-in instruments related to an A&W restaurant incident on October 17, 2013, where they were arrested.

The accused were also convicted of break and enter and possession of property obtained by crime at an Alden Coffee Shop on September 12, 2013 (Edwards only).

The accused were acquitted of the remaining charges, as the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt despite circumstantial evidence being highly suspicious.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood on April 28, 2013.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing 160 mg/100ml taken approximately 2.5 hours after the incident, supported by an expert report estimating the accused's BAC at the time of driving was between 160-205 mg/100ml.

The defence presented evidence of bolus drinking (rapid consumption of alcohol shortly before driving) and expert evidence suggesting the accused's BAC at the time of driving was between 49-73 mg/100ml.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused consumed large quantities of alcohol within 15 minutes prior to the incident, a critical assumption underlying the Crown's expert opinion.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death arising from a motor vehicle collision on October 31, 2008, in which two passengers died.

The defence brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that proceeding to trial would violate the accused's right to security of the person due to catastrophic physical injuries and severe psychological trauma.

The Crown opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the charges and public interest in prosecution.

The court granted the stay, finding that the accused suffered irreparable harm to her health and could not meaningfully participate in her own defence.