Rajpaul Singh Sekhon

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 30.06 for broad documentary production from the Township, including by-laws and records dating back to 1966, related to two properties.

The Township argued it had already fulfilled its production obligations.

The court found the parties' "discovery plan" inadequate and emphasized the mandatory nature of proper discovery planning and proportionality (Rules 29.1.03, 29.2.03).

The court determined that only documents related to the "legally non-conforming use" of the Subject Property were relevant based on the pleadings.

The motion was largely dismissed, with the exception of an order for the Township to disclose and produce its current zoning by-law (no. 30-1999), which was deemed relevant to the non-conforming use issue.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to the failure to engage in meaningful discovery planning.

Six defendants were charged with multiple offences including criminal organization offences, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and trafficking in identification and firearms.

The Crown's case relied heavily on six months of intercepted telephone calls and BBMs, bank records, expert evidence on account takeover frauds, and search warrant results.

The trial lasted one year.

The court found that Mr. Kalonji engaged in account takeover frauds involving insiders, hackers, and runners.

Mr. Henry was found guilty of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Ms. Galbraith was found guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud.

Mr. Simmons-McKenzie was acquitted due to insufficient voice identification evidence.

Ms. Munyenga and Ms. Robinson were acquitted of conspiracy charges.

All defendants were acquitted of criminal organization offences due to insufficient evidence of the requisite structure and organization.

Mr. Kalonji was convicted of the lesser included offence of trafficking in identification.