J. MacDonald

The offender, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner, was found guilty of a historical sexual assault against a patient during an examination in 1992.

The Crown sought 60 days incarceration, while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court emphasized the breach of trust and the need for denunciation and general deterrence, rejecting a discharge.

Considering the offender's lack of prior record, positive community contributions, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court imposed a 60-day conditional sentence followed by three years' probation, along with mandatory DNA, weapons prohibition, and SOIRA orders.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendant's failure to close a real estate transaction.

The defendant had agreed to purchase the plaintiffs' property but failed to obtain financing after a market correction.

The defendant communicated his inability to close prior to the closing date and failed to participate in closing preparations.

The court found that the defendant anticipatorily breached the agreement, relieving the plaintiffs of the obligation to tender perfectly.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages for the difference in sale price and carrying costs.

The accused, a practitioner of Traditional Chinese Medicine, was charged with sexually assaulting a patient during an internal examination in 2004 or 2005.

The Crown alleged the examination was not a legitimate medical practice and that the complainant's consent was vitiated by fraud.

The court admitted expert evidence on Traditional Chinese Medicine but found it insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's actions fell outside the unregulated practices of the time or that he knowingly breached provincial regulations.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused, a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against three former patients.

The Crown alleged the accused touched the complainants in a sexual manner under the guise of 'energy work' and medical treatment.

The court dismissed the Crown's similar fact application, finding the evidence across counts was either not probative of the sexual nature of the touching or too dissimilar.

The court acquitted the accused on all counts, finding the testimony of one complainant unreliable and harbouring a reasonable doubt as to whether the touching of the other two complainants was of a sexual nature rather than for a clinical purpose.

The applicant accused brought an application for the production of occurrence reports.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was not satisfied that the requested records should be produced, with written reasons to follow.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against several young persons, including sexual interference, sexual assault, internet luring, and making and possessing child pornography.

The Crown applied for a long‑term offender designation under s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed psychiatric risk assessment evidence and found the offender presented a moderate risk of sexual reoffending, with a pattern of grooming behaviour toward vulnerable adolescents.

The court concluded that the statutory criteria for a long‑term offender designation were satisfied and that risk could be managed in the community through supervision.

A global penitentiary sentence of seven years and one month was imposed along with a five‑year long‑term supervision order and several ancillary orders.

The applicants sought approval under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for a sale of substantially all of their assets following a court‑approved sales and investor solicitation process.

The court considered the statutory factors in s. 36 of the CCAA, including the fairness and reasonableness of the process, the role of the monitor, consultation with creditors, and the adequacy of the consideration.

A late competing bid was rejected to preserve the integrity of the court‑approved sales process.

The court also addressed priority issues involving a DIP lender, secured creditors, and potential claims to HST refunds under the Financial Administration Act.

The proposed transaction and distribution scheme were approved as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.