Lorne Sabsay

The court sentenced Tayshaun Powell for reckless discharge of a firearm, considering the impact of anti-Black racism, his personal background, and the circumstances of the offence.

The court imposed a 3.5-year custodial sentence, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are paramount, exceptional personal circumstances and systemic factors justified a sentence below the usual range for such offences.

The defendants, charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality, brought motions for disclosure of Ministry inspectors' disciplinary files and a "Director's Memo," and for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process and unreasonable pre- and post-charge delay.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the requested disciplinary files were not relevant first-party disclosure and that the Director's Memo was protected by solicitor-client privilege, with no "innocence at stake" exception met.

The court also determined that the pre- and post-charge delays were not unreasonable under the Charter's fair trial and delay provisions, and that the alleged investigative and prosecutorial misconduct did not meet the high threshold for an abuse of process stay.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the Developer Defendants for alleged misappropriation of $9 million.

Concurrently, the Developer Defendants sought to set aside their noting in default and obtain leave to file a Statement of Defence, asserting they had purged previous contempt orders related to a Mareva and Disclosure Order.

The court reviewed the Developer Defendants' efforts to provide an accounting and disclosure, acknowledging remaining gaps but finding that they had done all that was reasonably possible given the circumstances and passage of time.

The court emphasized that perfect compliance was not required to purge contempt.

Consequently, the Developer Defendants' motion to set aside default and for leave to file defences was granted, and the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment was dismissed.

No costs were awarded to either party, as the plaintiffs were justified in bringing their motion given the history of non-compliance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine the appropriate sanction for the Developer Defendants' continuing contempt of a Mareva and Disclosure Order, following a Court of Appeal decision remitting the matter for re-sentencing.

The court found that the defendants had still not purged their contempt, having failed to properly account for the plaintiffs' $9 million investment.

The court sentenced the individual defendants to 30 days of intermittent incarceration, struck the statement of defence, and deemed the defendants noted in default, with leave to apply to file a defence only if they fully purge their contempt.

Richard Aguilar appealed his convictions for child luring and communicating for sexual services, and his sentence.

The convictions stemmed from text message conversations with an undercover officer believed to be a 14-year-old girl, part of 'Project Raphael'.

Aguilar alleged errors in the trial judge's findings regarding the offences and rejection of his innocent explanations.

He also argued the sentence was unfit, lacked parity, and did not adequately consider his health or sentencing delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, no error in credibility findings, and no reversal of the burden of proof.

The court also found the sentence fit and that the principle of parity was not disregarded.

The appellant, Feisal Noor, appealed his conviction on firearms-related charges, arguing that his s. 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention and s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police had reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention and that the handgun was found in plain view during a lawful struggle, thus dismissing the Charter application and affirming the conviction.

The plaintiff sought to continue an ex parte Mareva injunction and certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) against the defendant, Mornan, in relation to an $8 million cellphone robbery.

Mornan brought a cross-motion to set aside the orders.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure on the original ex parte motion, misstating the defendant's criminal charges and involvement.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or a real risk of dissipation.

The Mareva injunction and CPLs were set aside, and the defendant was awarded full indemnity costs.

An independent contractor was engaged under a six-month Independent Consulting Agreement to provide technological consulting services for a Canadian Tire project.

The contractor disclosed a dated criminal record before commencing work and complied with security checks.

When the security report revealed the criminal record, Canadian Tire requested the contractor's replacement.

The company terminated the engagement one month into the contract under a termination clause allowing termination at the company's sole discretion.

The contractor sued for breach of contract, claiming six months' remuneration.

The motion judge awarded full damages plus costs, finding the company breached its duty of good faith performance.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that although the termination clause was facially unfettered, it was subject to an implied obligation of good faith performance, and the contractor was entitled to damages for the unexpired term of the fixed-term contract with no duty to mitigate.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interim injunction against a former employee, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought elevated costs on a substantial or full indemnity basis, arguing the application was meritless and intended to intimidate.

The court found the application was not frivolous and counsel conduct was not inappropriate.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $12,500 all inclusive.

The applicant daycare facility sought an interim injunction to restrain a former employee from soliciting its clients and employees, alleging breach of a non-solicitation clause.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The loss of one employee and two clients was either compensable in damages or not clearly linked to solicitation, and there was no evidence of ongoing solicitation.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The offender was found guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography and challenged the constitutionality of the six-month mandatory minimum sentence under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court determined that a fit sentence for the offender was ten months' imprisonment, making the mandatory minimum not grossly disproportionate for him.

The court also rejected the argument that the mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate for a reasonably foreseeable offender.

The offender was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment, less sixty days' credit for time spent on house arrest bail, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, Angela Smith, was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

She brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on two Charter breaches: (1) loss of material evidence (the digital video recording from the holding cell) contrary to sections 7 and 11(d), and (2) excessive invasion of privacy through surveillance of her while using the toilet in the holding cell, contrary to section 8.

The court found both breaches established and granted a stay of proceedings, finding this to be the clearest of cases given the systemic and ongoing nature of the privacy violation, the accused's awareness of being recorded, the lack of legitimate safety concerns, and the failure of police to provide basic feminine hygiene accommodations.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing an action alleging oppression under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act arising from a corporation’s failure to satisfy a Small Claims Court judgment.

The plaintiff claimed the defendant, alleged to be a director, failed to ensure that the corporation maintained a reserve to pay its debt following corporate restructuring and insolvency.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the evidence demonstrated the defendant was merely an employee under the control of another corporation and was not the controlling mind of the debtor company.

Even assuming he was a director, there was no evidence he participated in the alleged oppressive conduct.

Summary judgment dismissing the claim against the moving defendant was granted.

Following a trial in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment for $25,000 in punitive damages but failed on other claims, the court determined costs of the action.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $276,000, while the defendants argued costs should be limited given the modest recovery.

The court considered proportionality, the reasonable expectations of an unsuccessful party, and factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the plaintiffs were only moderately successful, the defendants’ deceitful conduct and litigation behaviour lengthened the proceeding and justified an enhanced costs award.

The court fixed costs payable by the defendants at $50,000 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements.

A not‑for‑profit campus radio corporation sought a winding‑up order under the Winding Up and Restructuring Act after losing its broadcast licence, premises, and funding.

The opposing party argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the members’ resolution was invalid because it referred to “dissolution” rather than “winding up,” and that potential derivative claims should proceed.

The court held that the distinction between “dissolve” and “wind up” was immaterial in the circumstances and that the corporation had no meaningful assets or operational purpose.

The court rejected the argument that speculative derivative claims justified preserving the corporation’s existence.

A winding‑up order was granted and the opposition dismissed.

A group of related corporate plaintiffs alleged that a planning consultant and licensed real estate salesperson breached fiduciary duties during a land acquisition initiative by secretly purchasing the target property through his own company.

The court found that the consultant acted as an agent and fiduciary for the plaintiffs, given the trust placed in him, his role negotiating with the seller, and his undertaking to act on their behalf.

By failing to disclose his personal interest, misleading the plaintiffs about negotiations, and purchasing the property himself, the defendant placed himself in a conflict of interest and breached his fiduciary obligations.

Although the plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary loss and failed to establish negligence in the planning advice, the court held that the egregious and deceptive conduct warranted punitive damages.

Punitive damages of $25,000 were awarded to punish and deter such misconduct.

A numbered company operating as an entertainment establishment/nightclub was charged with operating without the required municipal license under the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that its right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

The Crown opposed the motion.

The court found that the total delay of 17 months, comprising 12 months of Crown and institutional delay, exceeded the acceptable threshold for a routine Part III provincial offence.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings.