Evan Thomas

Thomas Patrick Sliwinski pleaded guilty to manslaughter, unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and pointing a firearm.

The charges stemmed from a campaign of intimidation and violence against a civil litigation lawyer, Lisa Carr, including an attempted shooting, and involvement in the fatal shooting of Soheil Rafipour.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society given the planned nature of the crimes, their impact on victims, and the attack on the administration of justice.

Clifford Campsall pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his girlfriend, Shelby Goldhar, whom he strangled and partially dismembered.

The court considered aggravating factors including the domestic nature of the homicide, the victim's vulnerabilities, the offender's prior assault conviction against the victim, and the indignity to the body.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, youthfulness, intellectual disability, and family support.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, including additional credit for difficult conditions of incarceration (lockdowns, triple bunking, and COVID-19 pandemic stress).

In a certified class action by franchisees against Shoppers Drug Mart regarding the retention of professional allowances, the plaintiffs brought a discovery motion seeking to compel answers to refused questions, to examine three non-party former employees, and to obtain documentary production from two non-party generic drug manufacturers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had already provided sufficient information to allow the plaintiffs to argue their case, and that further discovery would be irrelevant and disproportionate.

The court ordered a limited search for documents related to 'over and above' amounts but otherwise denied the relief sought.

The Fund brought a motion seeking payment of $1 million in deferred proceeds under a share purchase agreement and a declaration that Newbury's removal of the general partner of a limited partnership contravened a CCAA stay order.

The court granted the order for deferred proceeds, interpreting the agreement's clear language and factual matrix to mean payment was contingent only on the absence of Canadian Exit Tax, not on profit or loss from the sale of securities.

The court dismissed the request regarding the stay order, finding it did not extend to the general partner or partnership.

Costs were awarded to the Fund.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to state a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

The court struck out the fresh as amended statement of claim, finding that the claims (breach of privacy, trespass, conspiracy) were legally deficient, particularly due to absolute privilege for statements made in legal proceedings and a lack of material facts.

The court further found the action to be an abuse of process, largely driven by a non-lawyer, Gary Curtis, who had a history of vexatious litigation against the defendant.

Leave to amend the claim was denied, and the action was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the defendant due to the reprehensible conduct of the litigation.

The appellant, found guilty of assault and mischief, appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The appeal was based on two grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the trial judge's refusal to reopen the hearing to allow the appellant to testify.

The court applied the test for ineffective assistance of counsel from R. v. Archer and R. v. G.D.B., finding that counsel competently advised the appellant regarding the risks and benefits of testifying, including potential perjury and bail breaches.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision not to reopen the case, noting that the appellant's change of mind was a reversal of an earlier tactical decision, which did not warrant disrupting the orderly conduct of the trial.

Both grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The defendant was convicted of assault following a trial on April 24, 2018.

The assault occurred on April 24, 2017, when the defendant pushed an 82-year-old complainant into a pond at a public park without provocation.

The complainant was not physically injured but suffered psychological harm.

The defendant had a lengthy criminal record but no prior convictions for violence.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 4-6 months jail plus probation, while the defence sought a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first four months, followed by a curfew, combined with an 18-month probation order with additional requirements including anger management and alcohol abuse treatment, community service, and a DNA order.

The appellant appealed from orders of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing its action for delay and awarding costs to the respondents.

The action, commenced in 2005 for negligent engineering work on natural gas turbines, had been dormant since 2009 following a successful appeal of a summary judgment dismissal.

The respondents brought a motion under Rule 24.01 to dismiss for delay and recover costs.

The appellant argued that Rule 48.14, which mandates automatic dismissal of actions five or more years old without trial, should have applied without costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and costs award, finding that Rule 24.01 and Rule 48.14 operate concurrently with no hierarchy between them, and that the court retained jurisdiction to award costs under Rule 24.01 despite Rule 48.14's silence on costs.

Sapient Canada Inc. appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to Atos (successor to Siemens) for wrongful termination of a subcontract involving data conversion and application management support services for an Enbridge software implementation project.

Sapient sought to reduce damages from $6,291,680 to $1,510,738.89, arguing the trial judge erred in: (1) failing to apply the minimum performance principle from Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd.; (2) misinterpreting the termination for convenience formula; and (3) misinterpreting a limitation of liability clause.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in failing to apply the minimum performance principle to data conversion services damages, reducing the award by $1,344,275 to $4,947,405.

The court upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the termination for convenience formula and the limitation of liability clause.

Costs were remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued the defendants should not receive costs due to their delay in bringing the motion to dismiss.

The court held the defendants were entitled to costs, but only on a partial indemnity basis, as the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.

Given the lengthy delay and the fact that the judges who dealt with the merits had retired, the court found exceptional circumstances warranted referring the costs for assessment rather than fixing them.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, which alleged negligent engineering in the construction of a cogeneration station, had been dormant for several years following a successful appeal by the plaintiff in 2009.

The court found the delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and prejudicial to the defendants, as several potential witnesses were no longer available.

The court dismissed the action for delay and confirmed its authority to award costs, directing the parties to provide further submissions on the costs issue.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a class action certification decision concerning alleged price-fixing of colour display tubes.

The motion for leave to appeal raised three main issues: whether an unlawful means conspiracy claim could be based on the Competition Act, whether "umbrella purchasers" had a viable cause of action, and whether the methodology for establishing class-wide harm met the "credible and plausible" standard.

The court granted leave to appeal on the issue of umbrella purchasers due to conflicting jurisprudence and concerns about indeterminate liability, but denied leave on the other two issues, finding the certification judge applied the correct test for common issues and that the Competition Act is not a complete code precluding common law claims.

Commercial List trial arising from the wrongful termination of a subcontract in a large SAP IS-U implementation project.

The court held that the prime contractor wrongfully terminated the subcontract for cause, because alleged deficiencies in data conversion, reconciliation, and AMS did not amount to material incurable breaches and, in any event, earlier breaches had been affirmed.

The court further held that delay to Go-Live was multi-causal and could not be attributed solely to the subcontractor, with project management failures by the prime contractor bearing overall responsibility.

Lost profits for the AMS portion were recoverable because the limitation clause did not exclude direct expectation damages under the subcontract.

The plaintiff recovered substantial damages, while the defendant succeeded only in part on a limited counterclaim for specific breaches, unpaid invoices, and a contractual late-delivery penalty.

The moving party (respondent on appeal) brought a motion for security for costs against the responding party (appellant), an insolvent representative plaintiff in a class action.

The moving party sought over $5.3 million for trial and appeal costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had delayed significantly in bringing the motion, having known of the responding party's insolvency since 2012 but choosing not to seek security for tactical reasons.

This delay prejudiced the responding party by depriving it of the opportunity to seek funding from the Class Proceedings Fund and by allowing it to perfect its appeal at great expense.

The court also noted concerns about considering class members' assets when determining a representative plaintiff's impecuniosity.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the defendants for allegedly conspiring to fix prices of cathode ray tubes (CDTs) and colour picture tubes (CPTs).

The plaintiff asserted causes of action under the Competition Act and for common law unlawful means conspiracy, including claims on behalf of umbrella purchasers.

The court found that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, an identifiable class existed, the claims raised common issues, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The motion for certification was granted.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief to private property relating to an altercation with the victim, as well as two counts of breach of probation.

The trial involved a three-day hearing with evidence from the victim, the accused, and a third party witness.

The court found the accused guilty on all charges after rejecting the accused's self-defence claim.

The court determined that the accused had armed himself with a kitchen knife in anticipation of the victim's return to the house and used it disproportionately against an unarmed opponent.

The court found the accused's post-offence conduct—breaking the knife and hiding the blade in a toilet tank—demonstrated consciousness of guilt and knowledge that his actions were unlawful.

The plaintiff moved for a Mareva injunction to freeze approximately $1.1 million held in a custody account belonging to the defendant, alleging the funds were mistakenly paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation for an improper purpose, or irreparable harm.

The defendant's intention to withdraw the funds was deemed a legitimate part of its corporate wind-down process.

A class action brought by automobile dealers challenged a manufacturer’s 2009 wind‑down agreements issued during the global financial crisis, alleging breaches of the statutory duty of fair dealing, disclosure obligations, and the right of association under franchise legislation.

The court held the manufacturer did not breach its contractual or statutory obligations in implementing the dealer reduction plan or issuing the agreements under urgent restructuring circumstances.

However, the law firm advising the dealer group was found to have breached fiduciary duties, contractual duties, and the standard of care by acting despite conflicts of interest and failing to properly advise the dealers during the restructuring process.

The court concluded that the lawyers’ misconduct deprived the dealers of a real opportunity to negotiate improved termination compensation.

Aggregate damages were therefore awarded for loss of that negotiation opportunity.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a collision in a parking lot.

The Crown proceeded only on the impaired charge.

Evidence established that the accused collided with a parked vehicle, exhibited inappropriate behaviour at the scene, failed an approved screening device, and displayed signs of intoxication during police custody.

The defence challenged the admissibility of certain statements under the Charter and argued that post-arrest behaviour should not be considered due to the time elapsed.

The court found the accused guilty, holding that the totality of evidence, including observations at the scene, the collision itself, the accused's bizarre behaviour in police custody, and video evidence from the police station, established impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant franchisor appealed a motion judge's refusal to transfer the venue of a franchise dispute from Hamilton to Kitchener.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred by not requiring the plaintiffs' chosen venue to have a rational connection to the claim, relying on the Siemens decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that motions to change venue require a holistic application of the factors in Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found no error in the motion judge's balancing of the factors and affirmed that a plaintiff's choice of venue, even if lacking a strong rational connection, may be upheld if the defendant fails to demonstrate that a transfer is desirable in the interests of justice.