Lynn Ratushny

The moving parties sought an order under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to stay or dismiss an Ontario action for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis that Italy was the proper forum.

The action alleged breach of contract and inducement of breach relating to an agreement dividing inherited Italian real property among family members following the completion of succession proceedings in Italy.

Applying the jurisdictional framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the dispute because the parties resided in Ottawa, the agreement was signed there, and the alleged breach occurred there.

The court rejected arguments that Italian succession law governed the dispute or that Italy was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The motion to dismiss or stay the action was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault against his spouse following a trial involving only the complainant and the accused as witnesses.

The appeal argued that the trial judge misapplied the credibility framework from R. v. W. (D.), misapprehended the accused’s evidence, and improperly shifted the burden of proof.

The reviewing court found that the trial judge accepted the complainant’s evidence and treated portions of the accused’s testimony as an acknowledgment of assault without fully considering whether the accused’s evidence, taken as a whole, could raise a reasonable doubt.

This approach effectively turned the case into a credibility contest and curtailed a proper W. (D.) analysis.

The conviction and accompanying DNA order were quashed and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant, convicted of first‑degree murder and serving life imprisonment with 25 years’ parole ineligibility, sought a reduction of the ineligibility period under the “faint hope” provisions of s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted the initial judicial screening required under s. 745.61 to determine whether the application demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success before a jury.

The materials showed exceptional institutional conduct, rehabilitation efforts, and declining health, though the Crown challenged the applicant’s credibility and role in planning the murder.

Weighing the statutory factors including character, conduct during incarceration, the nature of the offence, and the victim impact evidence, the court found the threshold test met.

The application was permitted to proceed to a jury hearing.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in crack cocaine after selling multiple quantities to an undercover officer over several weeks.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 30 to 36 months given the offender’s prior record for similar offences, while the defence sought a conditional sentence based on rehabilitation, family responsibilities, and the needs of a child with significant care requirements.

The court acknowledged the serious aggravating factors, including repeated trafficking and prior convictions, but also recognized substantial mitigating circumstances including genuine rehabilitation, stable employment, family dependency, and a guilty plea.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the objectives in ss. 718 and 718.1 of the Criminal Code, the court concluded that a sentence under two years was appropriate.

A conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict house arrest conditions, followed by three years of probation, was imposed.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter arising from a fatal apartment building fire started when he lit an artificial Christmas wreath as a prank and left the scene.

Two residents died from burns and smoke inhalation and extensive property damage resulted.

The court considered the objective foreseeability of bodily harm required for unlawful act manslaughter, the offender’s youth, remorse, guilty plea, and lack of subjective intent to cause harm.

Aggravating factors included the extreme recklessness of igniting a fire in a residential hallway and the loss of two lives.

A penitentiary sentence reflecting denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation was imposed.

Sentencing decision following a guilty plea to unlawful act manslaughter and failing to attend court.

The accused struck a stranger without provocation, knocking the victim from a bicycle and subsequently kicking and stomping him while he lay on the ground, resulting in fatal head injuries.

Aggravating factors included the vulnerability of the victim, gratuitous post‑assault violence, the offender’s conduct after the offence, and breaches of bail culminating in a failure to attend court.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth at the time of the offence, lack of prior record, and guilty plea.

The court imposed a custodial sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the offender’s youth.

The plaintiff accounting firm sought costs as a sanction against numerous defendants for alleged delay in providing answers to undertakings, advisements, and refusals arising from examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants took approximately sixteen months to provide all answers and that the motion was necessary to compel compliance.

The court found that although the timeline was lengthy, the delay was largely explained by the large number of defendants, the volume of undertakings, and the need to obtain detailed accounting information from multiple franchise operators.

The court concluded there was no evidence of uncooperative conduct or improper litigation tactics by the defendants or their counsel.

In the circumstances, a costs sanction was not justified.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave to bring motions concerning spousal support and access to a child.

The court reviewed the requirements imposed by an earlier order requiring leave before commencing proceedings and requiring proof that all outstanding costs orders had been satisfied.

The court found the issues raised had already been recently determined in a prior motion for leave before another judge and that no new evidence justified reconsideration.

Additionally, the applicant failed to provide satisfactory proof that all outstanding costs orders had been paid as required by the earlier order.

The court concluded the matters were res judicata and dismissed the motion for leave.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of impaired operation of a motor vehicle by a drug under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal court found the trial judge failed to consider the cumulative effect of the evidence regarding whether the accused’s impairment was caused by drugs, including eyewitness evidence of impaired driving, expert evidence regarding the presence of drugs, and a statement to police.

The trial judge also failed to rule on the voluntariness and admissibility of the accused’s statement after a voir dire.

These errors constituted errors of law that materially affected the acquittal.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

A costs endorsement following prior proceedings between a self-represented plaintiff and multiple defendants including federal officials and the Attorney General of Canada.

The parties consented to the disposition of costs.

The court fixed costs in favour of the defendants in a nominal amount payable by the plaintiff forthwith.

The accused was sentenced following conviction after trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking involving 111.85 kilograms of cocaine.

The court considered the extraordinary quantity, high purity, and multi‑million‑dollar value of the drugs, as well as the accused’s prior conviction for a similar offence involving multi‑kilogram quantities.

Although the court found the accused’s role was limited to that of a courier, the circumstances demonstrated a high level of organization, planning, and trusted involvement in a large trafficking enterprise.

Emphasis was placed on denunciation and both general and specific deterrence.

A penitentiary sentence of 15 years was imposed with credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a negligence action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by correctional authorities in relation to the murder of her son while he was incarcerated, arguing that the claim was only discovered after a coroner’s inquest and report revealed additional information about officer misconduct and possible obstruction of the police investigation.

The court held that the claim was discovered when the plaintiff received the Board of Investigation report in 2005, which identified failures by correctional officers to follow institutional policies and procedures.

Later information from the inquest and coroner’s report merely provided further evidence supporting an already discoverable claim.

There was no evidence of fraudulent concealment that would suspend the limitation period.

The action commenced in 2010 was therefore outside the two‑year limitation period.