Kenneth W. Golish

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography, arguing the jury's verdict was unreasonable and that expert evidence was required to prove his knowledge and control of the files.

The police found a computer in the appellant's bedroom containing over 3,800 images of child pornography.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury was entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's computer expertise and the testimony of his housemate, to conclude that the only rational inference was that the appellant knew the images were on his computer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding no breach of his right to counsel of choice under s. 10(b) of the Charter, and in finding the breath test readings proved his blood alcohol exceeded the legal limit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Charter ground, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the second ground, holding that the trial judge erred in law by relying on inadmissible roadside screening device results to prove the offence, and that the breath technician's evidence of readings with a preceding decimal point (e.g., .170) did not prove the blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80mg in 100ml.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $2,000,000 action for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution on a motion for summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the litigation was ill-advised and had no chance of success.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amount sought to recognize the effect on the plaintiff, fixing costs at an all-inclusive sum of $15,000.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution.

The plaintiff, a legal assistant, had been previously acquitted of immigration fraud charges following an undercover RCMP investigation, while her employer was convicted.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and prosecute the plaintiff based on intercepted communications and her involvement in fabricating a refugee claim.

As reasonable and probable grounds existed, both the negligent investigation and malicious prosecution claims failed.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder and arson after breaking into the apartment of a pregnant woman to steal her underwear.

When discovered, he brutally murdered the victim and subsequently set the apartment on fire to destroy evidence.

The court weighed the extreme brutality of the unprovoked attack, the vulnerability of the pregnant victim, and the severe post-offence conduct against the offender's guilty plea and lack of prior record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a 22-year period of parole ineligibility for the murder, and a concurrent 5-year sentence for arson.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought applications under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for the civil forfeiture of four properties used as marijuana grow operations.

The application judge ordered the forfeiture of three properties but declined to forfeit the fourth, finding it would clearly not be in the interests of justice because the owner was innocent and only a small portion of the mortgage was paid with illicit funds.

The property owners appealed the forfeiture orders, arguing the standard of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Crown was estopped from seeking civil forfeiture.

The Attorney General appealed the refusal to forfeit the fourth property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, affirming that civil forfeiture operates on a balance of probabilities, is independent of criminal proceedings, and that the 'interests of justice' exception functions similarly to equitable relief from forfeiture.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they failed to establish that the respondent life insurance company waived the dependency requirement in the insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $10,000 to the respondent.