Marcy Segal

Ms. Hung brought a motion seeking to have Mr. Willis found in contempt, to produce documents pursuant to an earlier order, and to pay funds into court.

The contempt motion was withdrawn due to procedural issues, and the request for payment into court was dismissed as res judicata.

However, Mr. Willis was ordered to produce documents he had previously been ordered to provide.

Both parties sought costs for the motion.

The court found Ms. Hung was successful on the core issue of document production, which Mr. Willis had unreasonably resisted.

Mr. Willis's arguments were deemed without merit and unreasonable, and his conduct was considered contemptuous in a practical sense.

Ms. Hung was awarded costs of $5,650.00.

The respondent, Ms. Hung, brought a motion seeking an order to find the applicant, Mr. Willis, in contempt of a prior court order, for the delivery of his tax returns and Notices of Assessment, for his attendance at questioning, and for payment of funds into court.

The contempt aspect of the motion was withdrawn due to improper service.

The parties agreed on the questioning schedule.

The court ordered Mr. Willis to file his 2015, 2016, and 2017 tax returns with the CRA and provide them, along with Notices of Assessment, to Ms. Hung, rejecting his arguments that a subsequent order or non-filing with the CRA relieved him of this duty.

The request for payment into court was dismissed as res judicata, having been previously addressed by another order.

Costs were reserved for written submissions.

The mother appealed a trial judge's decision awarding sole custody of two children to their father.

The children had resided with the father since 2010 when the Children's Aid Society placed them with him, and the mother had previously agreed to this arrangement in 2012.

At trial, the Office of the Children's Lawyer supported continued residence with the father.

The mother sought to introduce hearsay evidence of statements made by the children and a surreptitious recording, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding this evidence and in awarding sole custody based on the father's alleged inattention to medical needs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the exclusion of the hearsay evidence or the recording, and finding the trial judge's custody determination was thorough, sensitive, and owed deference.

The appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal costs was refused.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce ante-mortem statements made by the deceased to demonstrate his state of mind and the accused's motive to kill.

The defence objected to the viva voce evidence of five witnesses and a Facebook thread, arguing they failed the test of necessity and were not material to motive.

The court ruled the statements admissible, finding they fell under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and were not introduced for the truth of their contents.

The court also held the statements were material to establishing motive and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, subject to minor redactions.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to exclude sworn jurors from the courtroom during the challenge for cause process using rotating triers.

The Crown argued that recent appellate jurisprudence eliminated the trial judge's inherent jurisdiction to exclude sworn jurors.

The court held that it retained the common law discretion to exclude sworn jurors, as the Criminal Code is silent on the matter.

The court exercised its discretion to exclude the sworn jurors to prevent them from sitting idly in court for up to a week while the remainder of the jury was selected, which would diminish respect for the process.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his residence and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle, finding cocaine in both locations.

The accused challenged the searches under s. 8 of the Charter.

The court upheld both searches, finding the warrant was supported by sufficient corroborated information from a confidential informant, and the vehicle search was validly incidental to arrest.

However, at trial, the accused raised an alternate suspect defence, pointing to his brother who lived with him and had access to the vehicle and residence.

The court found the brother lacked credibility but concluded the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused or his brother possessed the cocaine.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on December 31, 2015.

The defendant challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him for impaired driving and sought to exclude the breath test results.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including slow driving, driving without lights, a wide turn, failure to move to the side of the road when emergency lights were activated, and the smell of alcohol.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired by alcohol.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired driving but convicted of operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol (160 mgs per 100 milliliters of blood).

The accused, a 52-year-old operations manager at a brokerage firm earning approximately $70,000 annually, systematically stole approximately $175,000 from her employer over approximately 18 months by diverting deposit funds to her personal bank account.

The theft was motivated by financial and personal difficulties arising from matrimonial issues, leaving her solely responsible for supporting her two adult children pursuing post-secondary education.

The accused was of otherwise good character with a single prior conviction for impaired driving from 15 years prior.

She pleaded guilty and confessed to her criminal activity.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 15 months and full restitution.

The accused sought a conditional sentence order to be served in the community.

The court rejected the conditional sentence option, finding that the seriousness of the breach of trust, the amount stolen, the sophistication of the scheme, and the lack of restitution necessitated a custodial sentence to satisfy the principles of denunciation and general deterrence.

The accused sought to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual activity through social media accounts (Tumblr and Ask.fm) in a sexual assault trial.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the social media postings may constitute "sexual activity" under section 276 of the Criminal Code, the evidence was not admissible because it lacked relevance to the central issue of whether the complainant consented to the sexual activity.

The court rejected arguments that the evidence was necessary to explain the complainant's knowledge of sexual practices, to establish similarity with a prior alleged assault, or to impeach the complainant's credibility.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to exclude evidence under the Charter.

They alleged arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and right to counsel violations.

The court found that the initial investigative detentions and arrests were lawful and that the examination of the accused's shoes did not violate section 8.

However, the court found a section 9 violation for both accused because the police deliberately delayed bringing them before a Justice of the Peace within 24 hours in order to obtain statements.

Consequently, the statements made at the police station were excluded under section 24(2).

The expert evidence regarding gunshot residue and footwear impressions was ruled admissible.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple charges arising from motor vehicle operations in Burlington on December 6, 2012, and Toronto on January 29, 2013.

The charges included operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 months custody (after crediting 6 months pretrial custody) and a 10-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing was influenced by the accused's pattern of non-compliance with court orders, his serious driving conduct endangering public safety, and credibility concerns regarding rehabilitation evidence presented by his family.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation causing death following a fatal motor vehicle collision involving a tractor‑trailer.

He brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of several categories of evidence, including statements made at the collision scene, driving logs and related trucking documents seized from the vehicle, a videotaped police interview, and derivative evidence.

The court held that statements made to the first officer at the scene were compelled accident‑report statements under the Highway Traffic Act and therefore protected by use immunity pursuant to s. 7 of the Charter.

However, although police breached s. 8 by unlawfully searching the truck cab and seizing driving logs, the evidence was admitted after applying the Grant factors because the privacy interest was minimal and the evidence was reliable and important.

The court also rejected arguments that the logs engaged s. 7 self‑incrimination protections or that the later interview breached s. 10(b).

Following a jury conviction for second degree murder arising from a domestic homicide, the court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The offender stabbed his common law spouse during a heated argument in their shared home, resulting in her death.

The court considered the statutory framework for second degree murder sentencing, including ss. 235(1), 745(c), and 745.4 of the Criminal Code, as well as general sentencing principles under ss. 718–718.2.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record and the impulsive nature of the violence, while aggravating factors included the sudden lethal attack against an unarmed intimate partner and the breach of trust inherent in domestic relationships.

Balancing these factors and comparable case law, the court imposed a life sentence with a 12‑year period of parole ineligibility.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old child.

He argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and erred by taking judicial notice of DNA properties when concluding that the absence of his DNA on the complainant did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments.

While the trial judge did err by taking judicial notice of DNA persistence without expert evidence, the Court applied the curative proviso, finding the error harmless given the overwhelming credibility findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered the neighbour relationship as a low-end breach of trust.