Latoya Graham

The offender pleaded guilty to uttering a death threat and domestic assault.

The threat was motivated by homophobia against a stranger, while the assault involved dragging and confining his 17-year-old intimate partner in the presence of their infant.

The court rejected a conditional discharge for the threat, imposing a suspended sentence to emphasize denunciation and deterrence.

For the assault, the court accepted a joint submission of five months' custody, satisfied by pre-sentence custody credit, followed by 18 months of probation with counselling and no-contact conditions.

This is the third appeal brought by the respondent in a family law proceeding concerning equalization payments and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant sought to appeal an order of eviction from the matrimonial home and a power of sale granted by the trial judge due to the appellant's intransigence in the sale process.

The appellant also appealed a costs award of $36,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the eviction and power of sale order as an abuse of process, noting it was an attempt to circumvent two previous appeals that had been dismissed for delay.

The appeal was also found to be moot as the matrimonial home had already been sold.

The costs appeal was dismissed as the trial judge committed no reviewable error in awarding substantial indemnity costs based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct.

The plaintiff, Humi Holdings Corporation, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent former employees and their new company from competing and using alleged confidential information to develop an embedded payroll software product.

The court admitted expert evidence from both sides.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the non-competition clauses were enforceable or breached, or that confidential information was misused.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favored the defendants.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim to substitute Saint Elizabeth Health Care for the originally named defendant, Toronto Community Care Access Centre, after the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiff relied on the doctrine of misnomer, arguing that the proposed defendant was always the intended target and had received notice letters within the limitation period.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed defendant would have known it was the intended target upon reading the claim, and that there was no actual prejudice to justify refusing the amendment.

The moving defendants in a medical malpractice action sought an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce child welfare files from the Children's Aid Society and Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, arguing the plaintiffs undertook to produce them at discovery.

The plaintiffs resisted, arguing the undertakings were subject to relevance and privilege, and that the files were highly sensitive and irrelevant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the undertakings were qualified and that production of the entire child welfare files was disproportionate and highly prejudicial given the speculative relevance to the damages claims.

The offender was convicted after trial of aggravated assault for stabbing an unarmed man in the upper chest within two seconds of the start of a consensual fight.

The victim suffered a collapsed lung requiring hospitalization.

The offender had no prior criminal record at the time of the offence but had subsequent convictions for violent offences.

The sentencing hearing was protracted, involving psychiatric and psychological assessments that revealed significant intellectual deficits, personality disorders with antisocial and borderline features, and a moderately high risk of violent reoffending.

The court imposed a sentence below the typical range for such offences, considering the offender's rehabilitative potential, intellectual limitations, and family support.

A youth, aged 17 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty to procuring under section 212 of the Criminal Code, making child pornography under section 163.1, making available child pornography under section 163.1(3), and attempting to procure a person to become a prostitute under section 212(1)(d).

The youth recruited three young women aged 16 to work as prostitutes, took suggestive photographs, posted them on the internet, fixed prices for sexual acts, and collected money from the women.

The court imposed a 24-month probation sentence with conditions rather than custody, considering the youth's strong family support, genuine remorse, guilty pleas, counselling efforts, community involvement, and rehabilitation potential against the serious nature of the exploitation offences.