Lucille Shaw

The accused, R.V., was charged with multiple counts including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, assault, attempting to choke, and uttering threats against the complainant, N.C., stemming from two alleged incidents.

The defense argued consensual sexual activity and denied other allegations.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis to assess conflicting evidence.

While the accused's evidence was found not credible due to dishonesty and untruthfulness about the relationship, the complainant's credibility was also significantly undermined by untruthful testimony regarding the existence and disappearance of key voicemail and social media messages.

Despite the Crown's arguments for corroborating evidence, the court found the complainant's untruthfulness on material issues created a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all counts.

The accused, S.D.C., was tried without a jury on one count of sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) and one count of touching for a sexual purpose (s. 151 Criminal Code) involving his daughter, S. The case hinged on credibility assessments of the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) analysis.

The court found the accused's evidence illogical and not credible, rejecting his denial.

The complainant's evidence, despite minor inconsistencies and her being half-asleep, was found credible and reliable, corroborated by the accused's own statements.

The Crown proved the elements of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to a finding of guilt on both counts.

The offender was convicted by a jury of sexual assault after engaging in non-consensual vaginal intercourse with a friend who was intoxicated.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought six months followed by probation.

The court rejected the defence's argument that the victim's prior consensual sexual activity with another person mitigated the offender's blameworthiness.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to three years' imprisonment.

The plaintiff, a blaze welder with 36 years of service at a predecessor company, was terminated shortly after the defendant purchased the business.

The defendant argued it only purchased assets and hired the plaintiff on a fixed-term contract as a general labourer to assist with moving.

The court found the defendant purchased the business as a going concern and failed to unambiguously communicate a fixed-term contract to the plaintiff, making her an indefinite employee.

Applying the Bardal factors and recognizing her prior service, the court awarded the plaintiff 12 months' reasonable notice.

The plaintiff moved for an order to extend the time to set the matter down for trial, which the defendants opposed, seeking dismissal for delay.

The action, arising from a business purchase, had been dormant for over five years.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and the action, finding the plaintiff's explanations for delay (family deaths, wife's mental health, own mental health, financial strain, COVID-19 impact) unacceptable due to lack of cogent evidence and the plaintiff's apparent financial capacity and other business activities.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants due to faded witness memories and unavailable banking records, emphasizing the importance of respecting procedural timelines for timely access to justice.

The applicant, Chai Gala-Nyam, sought to stay charges or exclude evidence (drugs and identity documents) seized after a traffic stop, alleging racial profiling by the arresting officer.

The court found that racial profiling, though unconscious, tainted the officer's conduct prior to the stop.

Based on this finding and the Crown's concession, the seized evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent's claim to set aside a cohabitation agreement.

The respondent argued the agreement should be set aside due to unconscionability, undue influence, duress, and inadequate financial disclosure, stemming from alleged coercive control during their 18-year common law relationship.

The court found that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly concerning the credibility of the parties and the nature of their relationship, which could not be resolved on a paper record.

The applicant's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

Personal injury trial arising from a 2015 motor vehicle accident involving a plaintiff with a prior 2012 collision and earlier mental health history.

The court rejected the defence theory that the plaintiff was malingering or merely misattributing pre-existing impairments, and found that the 2015 accident caused soft tissue injuries, chronic pain, psychological injury, headaches, and cognitive deficits that permanently impaired work and daily functioning.

Applying the but-for causation test and the thin skull rule rather than the crumbling skull principle, the court held that the plaintiff had substantially recovered from the earlier accident but remained vulnerable to more serious consequences from the later collision.

The court awarded general damages, past and future income loss, future care costs, and derivative damages to the family claimant.

The applicant sought a declaration that he was not married to the respondent and an order that she vacate his property.

The parties participated in a religious marriage ceremony in 2004 while the applicant was still married to his first wife.

The court granted summary judgment declaring the marriage void ab initio, as the applicant lacked capacity to marry, rendering s. 31 of the Marriage Act inapplicable.

Consequently, the property was declared not to be a matrimonial home.

However, the court declined to order the respondent to vacate the property on an interim basis, finding she had a potentially meritorious constructive trust claim that required a trial.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault and sexual touching of a child family member, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to sharply conflicting evidence from the complainant and the accused.

The court found both witnesses credible and reliable, accepted that the accused's denial was unshaken, and concluded the evidence as a whole left a reasonable doubt.

The court also reviewed principles governing credibility assessment, child witness evidence, delayed disclosure, and the limited use of prior consistent statements.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial on historical intrafamilial sexual offence allegations, the court acquitted on four counts involving one complainant but convicted on two counts involving a second complainant.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and credibility principles for historical sexual assault cases, the court found the second complainant credible and rejected the accused's evidence that the sexual activity only began when the complainant was an adult.

The court held that the accused, a significantly older great-uncle who spent time alone with the complainant and was entrusted with his care, stood in a position of trust under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

It further held that the accused abused that position of trust so as to vitiate apparent consent under s. 273.1(2)(c), supporting a conviction for sexual assault.

The acquittals on the remaining historical counts followed from exculpatory defence evidence that left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found drugs in his vehicle during the execution of a search warrant.

The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing the search warrant was improperly issued and his right to counsel was delayed.

The court found the search warrant for the vehicle was valid, but the warrant for the residence was invalid.

The court also found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel due to a systemic police practice of delaying access to counsel until after a search warrant is executed.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence seized from the vehicle and the accused's statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The plaintiff, an elderly pedestrian, was struck by a city bus and sustained injuries.

On the eve of trial, the plaintiff accepted a $25,000 settlement due to her declining health, with costs to be agreed or assessed.

The plaintiff sought over $124,000 in costs, while the defendants argued for $10,000 based on proportionality.

The court fixed costs at $96,780.93 on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants' late admission of liability and the necessity of expert reports justified a costs award exceeding the settlement amount.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, broke into a home while intoxicated and briefly touched the buttocks of a 13-year-old victim in her bedroom.

He was convicted of break and enter to commit an indictable offence and sexual interference.

The court found the Kienapple principle did not apply to stay the sexual interference charge, as the offences protect different societal interests.

Weighing the aggravating factor of a home invasion against significant mitigating factors including the offender's pro-social background and rehabilitation prospects, the court rejected the Crown's request for a seven-year sentence and imposed a concurrent 15-month sentence followed by two years of probation.

The offenders were found guilty by a jury of exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of two complainants who provided sexual services, and of receiving a financial benefit from those activities.

The court found the offenders exploited the young, vulnerable complainants for profit, with Mr. Deidun providing drugs and transportation, and Ms. Bernard booking hotel rooms.

After considering the Tang/Miller factors, the parity principle, pre-sentence custody, and Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions, the court sentenced Mr. Deidun to a net term of 30 months less 10 days, and Ms. Bernard to a net term of 11 months and 15 days.

The defendants brought a motion to determine the sequencing of their proposed summary judgment motion and the plaintiff's certification motion in a class action.

The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of s. 4.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which governs pre-certification motions.

The court followed the precedent set in Dufault v. Toronto Dominion Bank, affirming a presumptive right for preliminary motions that can dispose of or narrow issues to be heard before certification.

The court found that the defendants' proposed summary judgment motion raised genuinely arguable issues concerning limitation periods and the legality of their "negative vacation bank" policy under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which could narrow the litigation.

Consequently, the court ordered the summary judgment motion to proceed prior to the certification motion.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sued the defendants for a $250,000 commission under a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) after the defendants purchased a commercial property.

The sole issue at trial was whether the defendant signed a specific initial on the BRA extending its term to one year, which would cover the date of the purchase.

Both parties called forensic document examiners to testify on the authenticity of the initial.

The court found the plaintiff's expert more reliable and concluded on a balance of probabilities that the defendant did sign the initial.

The plaintiff was awarded the $250,000 commission.

The accused was charged with break and enter, sexual assault, and sexual interference after entering a stranger's home in the middle of the night and touching the 13-year-old complainant's buttock in her bedroom.

The court found the complainant and her family to be credible and reliable witnesses, despite minor inconsistencies in their evidence.

The court rejected the defence's arguments of inadvertent collusion and motive to fabricate.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with historical sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose relating to an incident that allegedly occurred 30 years prior when the complainant was four years old.

The Crown alleged the accused sexually assaulted the complainant and transmitted gonorrhea to her.

The court found that while the complainant was sexually assaulted and contracted gonorrhea as a result, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The court noted inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and other Crown witnesses, and found the accused's denial to be credible and unshaken.

The accused was acquitted.

The respondent (moving party) sought an order for the pre-trial sale of the jointly-owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act, as well as interim parenting and child support orders.

The applicant opposed the sale, alleging bad faith and a constructive trust claim.

The court granted the order for sale, finding the respondent had a prima facie right to sale and the applicant failed to establish malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct that would cause prejudice.

The court deferred making interim parenting and support orders due to conflicting and insufficient evidence, but continued a temporary stay of child support enforcement.