Kyle Duncan

The plaintiff was shopping at a retail store when she tripped and fell, fracturing her hip.

She sued the store for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act, alleging that an employee's shopping cart created a hazard.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that CCTV footage showed the plaintiff tripped over another patron's wheeled basket.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue for trial as the store's actions did not cause the fall and the premises were reasonably safe.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

A residential tenant sued his landlord and pest control contractor for $600,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages arising from a bedbug infestation and alleged negligent application of insecticide.

The tenant also claimed $6,000 for an alleged unlawful security deposit and $7,170.01 for hotel stays and cleaning services.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) for claims under $35,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the tenant's maximum recoverable damages could not exceed the LTB's monetary jurisdiction.

Cory Beale pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, failure to comply with a release order (no weapons), failure to comply with SOIRA, assault peace officer, and failure to comply with a release order (curfew).

The aggravated assault involved striking an elderly man with a machete.

The Crown sought 5.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, the unprovoked nature of the attack, the use of a deadly weapon, and the offender's extensive criminal record.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, recent rehabilitative efforts, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years' incarceration, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for violent crimes and breaches of court orders, while also acknowledging the offender's efforts towards rehabilitation and the challenges of SOIRA compliance for vulnerable individuals.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue strains and that she failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment were not payable.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

The applicant was a pedestrian whose foot was driven over by a vehicle.

He sought accident benefits, which the respondent denied on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no accident-related psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the requested psychological assessment and interest were denied.

The accused was charged with being unlawfully in a dwelling house, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment following an incident on August 30, 2019, when he entered the complainant's home without permission.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony about the entry and subsequent events inside the home, as well as prior communications between the parties.

The court found that the complainant's credibility was significantly undermined by a material inconsistency regarding whether her ex-husband, a former police officer, was present at her home when police responded to her 9-1-1 call.

The court determined that the complainant had deliberately misled the court about this fact, which raised concerns about a possible scheme to influence the police investigation.

As a result, the court found it unsafe to rely on the complainant's testimony regarding the entry and events inside the home.

Additionally, regarding the criminal harassment charge, the court found that while the accused's communications were unwanted and annoying, they did not rise to the level of criminal harassment as they did not cause the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.

The accused was acquitted of all three charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of crystal methamphetamine for trafficking, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failing to stop for police, possession of property obtained by crime, possession of break-in instruments, and breaches of probation.

The offences arose from a high-speed police chase through downtown Toronto during rush hour in a stolen vehicle, during which the accused damaged multiple vehicles, struck a pedestrian, and was found with approximately 2 ounces of crystal methamphetamine and stolen property.

The Crown sought a global penitentiary sentence of 4 years; the accused sought time served (approximately 2 years).

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years and 9 months, with credit for pre-sentence custody including Summers credit, administrative error credit, Duncan credit for harsh detention conditions, and a one-month reduction for COVID-19 pandemic impacts, resulting in 7 months remaining to serve.

The court also imposed a 4-year driving prohibition, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and 24-month probation.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion to add a proposed defendant to the action after the apparent expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued that the claim against the proposed defendant was not discovered until after the Statement of Defence was received.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to lead evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that the claim was discovered on the date of the accident, especially given that the plaintiff had sent a notice of action to the proposed defendant's insurer prior to issuing the Statement of Claim.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial interim release (bail) on serious charges arising from a dangerous police chase through downtown Toronto in August 2018, during which he drove a stolen vehicle at rush hour, endangered numerous pedestrians and cyclists, damaged multiple vehicles, and struck a pedestrian who lost consciousness.

The applicant had a substantial criminal record involving dishonesty offences, a history of bail breaches, and had committed similar offences while on strict house arrest bail.

The Crown opposed release, arguing the applicant posed a flight risk and a danger to the public.

The applicant proposed a house arrest bail with electronic monitoring and a surety.

The court found the applicant failed to meet his onus on the primary and secondary grounds and dismissed the application for bail.

The moving party, 183119 Canada Inc., brought a motion seeking an order for the disclosure of eight sets of documents from MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for a car dealership.

MPAC opposed the motion, arguing the requests were irrelevant, disproportionate, or sought information already available.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding the moving party failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents and that the broad requests were not proportionate to the proceedings.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by Trinity ERB Inc. for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a statement of issues by the deadline set in the Board's schedule of events and did not respond to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure was a clear and unilateral breach that prejudiced MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 24(e).

The accused was charged with threatening death to two individuals, assaulting one with a weapon, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The charges arose from an incident on March 19, 2017 at a residential property in Scarborough.

The Crown presented evidence from the alleged victims and supporting video and audio recordings.

The defence argued that the injuries were self-inflicted and that the allegations were fabricated.

The court found the Crown's evidence credible and corroborated by objective evidence, while finding the accused's testimony contradicted by video evidence and lacking credibility.

The accused was convicted on all counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The defendant was an active street dealer in cocaine over several months, obtaining product from a Toronto supplier and distributing in Durham Region.

Wiretap evidence proved sales of approximately 4 ounces, with an additional 4.5 ounces seized upon arrest, totaling 244 grams.

The Crown sought a four to five year sentence, while defence counsel argued for a reformatory sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in addition to pre-sentence custody, considering aggravating factors including the quantity of drug, the ongoing enterprise over months, and the criminal record, balanced against the guilty plea, the defendant's young age, and expressed desire to reform.