L. Ratushny

Following a successful summary judgment motion for an oppression remedy, the plaintiff sought costs of $22,352.93.

The defendants argued for a reduced amount of $7,500 due to the plaintiff's unsuccessful fraud claims and challenged the validity of the plaintiff's offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle was valid, entitling the plaintiff to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court made a nominal reduction for the unsuccessful fraud claims and fixed costs at $21,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Crown brought a bail review application seeking to detain the accused, who had been released by a justice of the peace on charges including robbery with weapons.

The Superior Court found that the justice of the peace erred in principle by inadequately considering the gravity of the offences, the accused's lack of connection to the jurisdiction, and his history of failing to attend court.

Conducting a de novo hearing, the court ordered the accused detained on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused pleaded guilty to two bank robberies committed in Montreal and Ottawa and to using an imitation firearm during the Montreal robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors including planning, threats of violence, and the accused’s extensive criminal record for similar offences, as well as mitigating factors such as guilty pleas and delay in transferring charges between jurisdictions.

Sentencing principles of proportionality, totality, denunciation, and deterrence were applied alongside the mandatory consecutive minimum sentence under s. 85 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined a global sentence of eight years was just and appropriate.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for presentence custody pursuant to s. 719(3.1) and the principles in Summers.

Sentencing decision for an offender who pleaded guilty to multiple bank robberies, an attempted robbery, and disguising offences arising from a series of incidents committed to support a cocaine addiction.

The offender had an extensive criminal record including numerous prior robbery convictions and multiple federal penitentiary sentences, as well as repeated parole violations.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the seriousness of offences against vulnerable bank employees and the offender’s persistent recidivism, while also weighing mitigating factors including guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, traumatic upbringing, addiction, and Indigenous background assessed through a Gladue report.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and public safety, the court imposed a global six‑year sentence with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody.

The applicant sought certiorari and mandamus to quash a detention order and obtain the return of her vehicle seized as offence‑related property under the Criminal Code.

The vehicle had allegedly been used by another individual in connection with cocaine trafficking, though the applicant herself was not charged.

The applicant argued the justice of the peace lacked jurisdiction to order detention because the police report failed to disclose the lawful owner and did not explicitly state that detention was required for another proceeding.

The court held that the information contained in the Form 5.2 Report to Justice—indicating the vehicle had been seized as offence‑related property and that charges had been laid—was sufficient for the justice to order detention under s. 490(1).

Minor errors in the form and the absence of explicit reference to a forfeiture proceeding did not amount to jurisdictional error.

The mother brought a motion seeking interim sole custody and interim spousal support following the parties’ separation after a long-term relationship and marriage.

The father opposed and sought the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

The court held that the existing shared parenting arrangement constituted the status quo and that interim changes should only occur where there is clear evidence of danger or a compelling reason.

Finding no evidence that the children were at risk or that their needs were not being met, the court declined to disturb the shared parenting schedule and instead referred the matter to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer under s. 112 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The request for interim spousal support was also declined pending further financial disclosure.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for fraud over $5,000, perjury by affidavit in a land transfer tax affidavit, and breach of recognizance.

The offences arose from the accused’s attempt to fraudulently transfer his elderly mother’s condominium parking space using a forged deed and false affidavit while she was suffering from dementia and residing in long‑term care.

The court found significant aggravating factors including breach of trust against a vulnerable family member, financial abuse, planning and sophistication, and the accused’s lack of remorse and refusal to accept responsibility.

A conditional sentence was rejected because denunciation and deterrence were paramount and the accused demonstrated poor prospects for community supervision.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months’ incarceration followed by two years’ probation with strict no‑contact conditions with siblings.

Sentencing for offences involving sexual assault, internet child luring, and sexual touching of a victim under the age of 16.

The offender engaged in grooming behaviour through online communications and arranged for the youth to attend his residence where sexual acts occurred.

Aggravating factors included the victim’s vulnerability, the offender’s planning and exploitation of trust, and significant psychological harm to the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s guilty plea, lack of criminal record, advanced age, remorse, and low assessed risk of reoffending.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation and several ancillary orders.

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter for failing to provide the necessaries of life to his severely disabled brother, who died of starvation, pneumonia, and infected bedsores after eight years of extreme neglect and financial exploitation.

The court found the accused's moral culpability to be exceptionally high, characterizing the offence as a 'near murder' due to the prolonged, deliberate, and horrific nature of the abuse.

The accused was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, with a 1:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, as the court declined to grant enhanced credit.

The accused, an employer, was found guilty by a jury of five offences involving extortion and criminal harassment against three former employees.

The accused falsely accused the employees of theft and threatened them with police action, deportation, and harm to their families in Iran if they did not pay him large sums of money.

The court rejected the defence's argument to stay the criminal harassment charges under the Kienapple principle, finding the offences occurred on different dates.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the accused's exploitation of the victims' vulnerabilities and abuse of authority, the court sentenced the accused to three years of incarceration concurrent for each offence, along with restitution orders totaling over $50,000.