Lindsay Young

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving after his SUV crossed a centre median into oncoming traffic, causing a multi-vehicle collision.

The Crown argued the defendant deliberately swerved to pass a slower car or was inattentive.

The defence argued a sudden brake malfunction forced the defendant to swerve to avoid rear-ending a vehicle.

The court found the defence expert's evidence regarding a brake-fluid leak raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also held that a momentary lapse of attention or failing to safely exit the median in a split-second emergency did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The accused was stopped during a mobile sobriety investigation after an officer observed him stumble while carrying alcohol to his vehicle in an LCBO parking lot.

He challenged the stop, the ASD demand, and the approved instrument demand under ss 8 and 9 of the Charter, and sought exclusion of the breath samples under s 24(2).

The court held that random or mobile sobriety stops are lawful in the regulated driving context, that the odour of alcohol supplied reasonable suspicion for the ASD demand, and that the ASD fail supplied reasonable grounds for the approved instrument demand.

The court rejected the argument that the officer's roadside reference to alcohol being “in his system” showed a misunderstanding of the statutory standard.

The Charter applications were dismissed and the Crown was found to have proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with assault arising from an incident in which he pushed the property owner (his landlord) out of his rental unit.

The landlord attended the property with plumbers to investigate a water leak.

The accused claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found that the accused had peaceable possession of the property and acted with a defensive purpose, it concluded that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The threat posed by the landlord was negligible, and the accused should have attempted verbal communication before resorting to physical force.

The court found the accused guilty of assault.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess alcohol, and mischief following a late-night incident on October 16, 2024, involving an argument with his spouse, consumption of alcohol, and a minor collision between his ATV and his spouse's vehicle on their rural property driveway.

The Crown proved the defendant's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit through breath samples taken at 3:32 a.m. and 3:58 a.m., both showing truncated readings of 170 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The defendant was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol but acquitted of impaired driving and mischief due to insufficient evidence of impairment at the time of driving and lack of intent regarding the property damage.

The plaintiff employers brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a former executive who resigned to join a competitor.

The plaintiffs sought to enforce non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality clauses, and alleged the former employee misused confidential information by wiping a company laptop and using a USB device before returning it.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenants were enforceable, as they lacked a proprietary interest and the clauses were overly broad and ambiguous.

The court also found no serious issue to be tried regarding the misuse of confidential information, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the employee.

The plaintiff, an RCMP officer, brought a civil action against the RCMP and his superior officers for harassment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and other torts.

The claims arose after the plaintiff participated in a political nomination meeting, which led his superiors to punitively transfer him out of national security work, initiate an unfounded internal investigation into his credit card use, and stand him down during a national security emergency.

The Superior Court of Justice recognized the tort of harassment in Ontario and found that the defendants' conduct was outrageous, flagrant, and caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress.

The court awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in general damages and $41,000 in special damages for lost income due to delayed promotional opportunities.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued the adjacent property owner for damages to its easement rights due to the defendant's failure to maintain a shared retaining wall, pleading negligence and nuisance.

The defendant, third parties (Development Engineering (London) Limited, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada), and fourth party (Atkinson, Davies Inc.) brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court found no common law, statutory, contractual, or equitable duty for the servient tenement (defendant) to repair the wall, especially since the defendant was not responsible for its initial collapse.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court also found that the defendant, third parties, and fourth party were not concurrent tortfeasors, thus precluding claims for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

During an ongoing trial, the plaintiff brought a motion to re-open his case to introduce new evidence regarding a recent event.

The plaintiff alleged that a mischaracterized harassment complaint was filed against him and improperly handled by senior management, which was relevant to his damages claim for workplace harassment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the new evidence was relevant and material to the plaintiff's damages, and that admitting it would not cause trial unfairness to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to re-open his case during an ongoing civil trial to introduce evidence of a workplace incident that occurred after the plaintiff had closed his case.

The incident involved a training-session comment that was incorrectly processed within the organization as a harassment complaint and entered into a harassment database.

The court considered the applicable test for reopening a case before the trial had concluded and held that the relevant inquiry was whether the proposed evidence was relevant and material.

The court found the evidence could be material to the plaintiff’s damages claim and that admitting it would not cause unfairness because the defendants had not yet closed their case and could respond.

The motion was granted and the testimony from the motion witnesses was permitted to be read into the plaintiff’s case.