A. White

The Crown applied for an extension of time to hold a prima facie hearing for an accused found unfit to stand trial due to advanced dementia.

The hearing was delayed past the two-year statutory deadline due to an administrative error in classifying the disposition and subsequent delays in scheduling.

The court granted the extension, finding that despite the unwarranted delay, the serious nature of the sexual assault allegations and the lack of significant practical prejudice to the accused made the extension necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application for variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the City reached an agreement, reducing the requested variances to a single variance for floor space index (FSI).

The Tribunal evaluated the revised proposal against the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed FSI respected the massing, scale, and density of the neighbourhood, and that the variance maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variance was authorized.

The accused was charged with robbery after allegedly taking fentanyl patches from a 67-year-old complainant at his rural home.

The accused admitted to taking the patches but claimed it was part of a pre-arranged drug transaction to settle a debt.

The court rejected the accused's testimony due to inconsistencies and her prior statement to police denying involvement.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court accepted the complainant's evidence that the accused and an accomplice smashed his door window and threatened him with a gun to obtain the fentanyl.

The accused was found guilty of robbery.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin, and possession of a weapon.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of three years and nine months, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal background, traumatic childhood, and substance abuse issues, as well as the aggravating nature of the highly addictive drugs involved.

At the accused's request, the remaining sentence was structured as two years to allow him to serve it in a federal penitentiary where he could access programming.

The Crown brought an application to admit the video statements of two accused, Vickerson and Fairbarn, obtained during a large-scale fraud and drug trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn also applied to exclude her statements under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found Vickerson's statements were voluntary and admissible, as he was properly advised of his rights, spoke to duty counsel, and chose to answer questions.

However, the court found Fairbarn's statements were not voluntary due to a combination of factors, including an unrecorded conversation with a detective who allegedly offered inducements, and a failure to fully advise her of her jeopardy regarding the trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn's statements were excluded.

Following a jury conviction for sexual assault of a child complainant, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence after emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society in child sexual abuse cases.

The court found significant aggravating factors including the complainant's young age, online grooming, the offender's knowledge of her age, digital penetration, and serious victim impact.

The court also considered the offender's Métis background, reported childhood sexual abuse, family instability, and other Gladue factors, but held that restorative considerations could not displace a penitentiary term for this offence.

A three-year custodial sentence was imposed together with ancillary protective orders.

The plaintiff environmental remediation company brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment for emergency spill cleanup services following a large canola oil spill at premises owned by the defendant landlord.

The plaintiff claimed compensation on the basis of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit after the tenant who initially retained the services became insolvent.

The court held that the landlord received a clear benefit from the cleanup because the work mitigated environmental harm and reduced the risk of regulatory orders and liability under the Environmental Protection Act.

The services were requested and authorized by a director of both the tenant and the landlord, and the evidence established that the cleanup prevented significant environmental and property damage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that allowing the landlord to retain the benefit without payment would be unjust.

The union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties had engaged in fourteen negotiating sessions over ten months but remained at an impasse on key issues including union security, wages, and a specific penalty clause for discharge.

The Board found that the employer had taken uncompromising positions without reasonable justification, failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude an agreement, and effectively refused to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.