Leibovich

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and cognitive impairment, was charged with the second-degree murder of his mother.

The Crown brought a motion to admit the accused's videotaped statement to police and an initial statement made upon arrest.

The court applied the confessions rule and the operating mind doctrine, finding that while the police treated the accused respectfully, his cognitive limitations raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he understood that his statements could be used against him in criminal proceedings.

The application to admit the statements was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to admit statements made by the accused during a nine-month 'Mr. Big' undercover operation, as well as a subsequent post-arrest statement, in a trial for manslaughter and indignity to a human body.

The accused had admitted to undercover officers that the victim died of a drug overdose and that he buried her body.

Applying the framework from R. v. Hart, the court found that the probative value of the undercover statements outweighed their prejudicial effect, noting the lack of coercion and the presence of markers of reliability.

The court also found the post-arrest statement to be voluntary under the confessions rule, rejecting arguments that the police created an atmosphere of oppression or offered inducements.

Both statements were ruled admissible subject to editing for discreditable conduct.

The defendant, Haccpone Co., Ltd., brought a motion under section 104 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order that the plaintiff, Dent-X Canada, pay security into court equal to twice the value of mask-making machinery delivered to it.

Haccpone alleged non-payment under a contract that allowed for repossession.

Dent-X disputed the existence of the contract, alleging the machinery was compensation for a prior failed delivery and raising issues of fraud and civil conspiracy.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Haccpone failed to establish substantial grounds for its claim or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the order, noting significant factual disputes requiring a trial.

The Crown brought a motion to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct and ante-mortem hearsay statements in a trial for manslaughter.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the deceased indicating she wanted to leave the accused and that he had previously choked her, as well as evidence of the accused's post-offence suicide attempt.

The court admitted the statements regarding the deceased's desire to leave the relationship and one specific recounting of a choking incident, finding them sufficiently reliable and probative of motive and animus.

Other hearsay statements regarding prior assaults were excluded due to insufficient reliability or excessive prejudicial effect.

The evidence of the suicide attempt was also ruled admissible.

The offenders, two youthful first-time offenders, were convicted of firearm offences after acquiring a handgun while collecting drug debts.

One offender also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving after a brief police chase.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of 2.5 to 3 years.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter and struck it down.

Applying the restraint principle and noting the offenders' strong rehabilitative prospects and community support, the court imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day for both offenders.

The applicant tenant sought to renew a commercial lease, but the parties could not agree on the market rate for basic rent.

The applicant brought an application requesting the court to fix the market rate and extend the lease, arguing the respondent breached its duty to negotiate in good faith.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the lease's renewal clause contained a specific failure provision that revoked the renewal option if mutual agreement was not reached.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to compel the landlord to accept an unagreed rent, and found no breach of the duty of good faith as both parties had negotiated genuinely but failed to agree.

The lease was extended by one month due to the respondent's delay tactics.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action regarding a stolen RV, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49.10 offer of $15,000.

The court found the offer was a token amount and not meaningful, awarding costs on a partial indemnity basis instead.

The court also reduced the claimed costs due to excessive preparation time billed by junior counsel, fixing the final costs award at $60,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.