Martin S. James

This Charter application, brought on behalf of an unrepresented accused, challenged the lawfulness of a warrantless police entry into the accused's residence to effect an arrest and the subsequent admissibility of evidence.

The court found that exigent circumstances, including the presence of firearms, the accused's agitated state, and the impracticality of waiting for a warrant in a remote location, justified the warrantless entry.

Consequently, the initial entry and the subsequent search incident to arrest were deemed lawful, and the application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support, life insurance, and health benefits following a 16-year marriage where she was the primary caregiver.

The respondent argued his new financial commitments to his fiancée should lessen his support obligations and that the applicant should be self-sufficient.

The court rejected the respondent's argument regarding new financial commitments but imputed a minimum wage income of $26,000 to the applicant.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $400 per month in interim spousal support, maintain $350,000 in life insurance, and reinstate the applicant on his extended health benefits plan.

The accused brought a defence application to sever counts on a multi-complainant indictment involving historical sexual allegations, a partner assault allegation, and more recent sexual allegations.

Applying the severance factors, the court held the applicant had established on a balance of probabilities that the interests of justice warranted severance.

The court found the factual nexus between the counts was not compelling at this stage, the risk of prejudice and cross-pollination on credibility assessments favoured severance, and similar fact admissibility was not sufficiently clear to outweigh those concerns.

The counts involving the historical allegations were severed from the counts involving the more recent allegations.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to provide copies of the documents listed in Schedule A of their Affidavit of Documents.

The court noted that the moving party's counsel had prematurely demanded the documents immediately upon receiving the Affidavit of Documents, contrary to good practice.

The court dismissed the motion, observing that it appeared to be a tactic to gain more time to deliver a further affidavit, and extended the timeline for the delivery of that affidavit.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant delayed scheduling her bail hearing because he was working as a part-time Crown Attorney.

The court found that while much of the claim was improperly drafted and irrelevant, it contained a viable cause of action in negligence or breach of contract regarding the bail hearing delay.

The court struck the offending portions of the claim but allowed the core action to proceed, awarding the defendant $1,000 in costs for partial success.

The applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the respondent for failing to provide updated income information, a change in custody and access for their 17-year-old daughter, and authorization to travel outside Canada without the respondent's consent.

The court found the respondent in contempt for deliberately withholding his income information, which was higher than previously disclosed, and ordered him to pay child support arrears.

The court also granted the applicant legal custody of the eldest daughter, with access subject to the daughter's wishes, and dispensed with the requirement for the respondent's consent for the applicant to travel with the children.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $2,500.

This costs endorsement followed a partially successful motion to change child support and post-secondary education expenses, which was brought by Mr. Reckzin.

Mr. Reckzin sought partial indemnity costs, arguing Ms. Hurrell failed to provide full financial disclosure and did not make formal settlement offers.

Ms. Hurrell, self-represented at the main hearing but represented by counsel for costs, argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success.

The court considered Mr. Reckzin's settlement offers and Ms. Hurrell's conduct regarding disclosure and offers.

The court awarded Mr. Reckzin fixed costs of $6,000 plus HST and disbursements, totaling $7,047.60, payable forthwith.

The plaintiff, Howard and Associates Inc., brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the defendant, Tomasek Agencies Inc., was not a "dependent contractor" and an order for the delivery of a sworn affidavit of documents.

The defendant had initially asserted a dependent contractor relationship but later clarified its position was based on implied contractual rights.

The court found the issue of dependent contractor status was not theoretical given the defendant's initial stance and reference to "economic dependence." The motion was granted, declaring that the defendant was not a dependent contractor and ordering the delivery of a sworn affidavit of documents.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing the action was statute-barred by the expiry of the limitation period.

The plaintiffs purchased a renovated house in 2008, experienced a minor basement leak in 2009, and discovered significant structural damage and a larger leak in 2011.

The action was commenced approximately two years after the 2011 discovery.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on the vendors' representations and that the concealment of deficiencies and misrepresentations displaced the "buyer beware" principle.

The court also determined it was unreasonable to expect the plaintiffs to conduct extensive investigations after the initial minor leak.

The moving party landlord brought a motion to discharge several construction liens registered against its property, arguing it was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because the work was requested by its bankrupt tenant.

The court found that the landlord and tenant were connected through common directors, officers, and legal counsel, and the landlord had paid substantial amounts for leasehold improvements.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the landlord's status as an owner.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a temporary 50-50 parenting regime for his three young daughters.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing the status quo was working and a parenting assessment did not constitute a material change.

The court dismissed the father's motion for 50-50 parenting, finding no compelling reason to alter the existing arrangement and that the assessor's observations did not amount to a material change of circumstances.

However, the court did address summer access, adopting a modified version of the mother's proposed schedule and implementing a brief modified 3-2-2 regime for the father starting in late August to allow him to demonstrate its viability before the scheduled trial.

The accused was charged with 11 counts, including assault, uttering threats, and mischief, arising from several incidents involving his estranged wife.

The court applied the W.D. analysis framework to assess conflicting evidence and witness credibility.

The accused was found guilty on three counts: assault (July 9, 2014), uttering a threat to cause death (November 30, 2015), and mischief for destroying a pillow (November 30, 2015).

He was acquitted on the remaining eight counts, including possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace, uttering a threat against his son, unlawful confinement, and other assault and mischief allegations, primarily due to a lack of corroborating evidence or the presence of reasonable doubt.

The accused, a parish priest, faced five counts of sexual assault involving a complainant, J.B., who was a teenager at the time of the alleged incidents.

The allegations included inappropriate touching during a shower and massage, and providing alcohol.

The court conducted a W.D. analysis, assessing J.B.'s credibility and noting several inconsistencies and improbabilities in his testimony, as well as his admission of untruthful evidence at a preliminary hearing.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the discrepancies and inconsistencies, coupled with the accused's denial, prevented the Crown from proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought state funding for his defence under section 7 of the Charter.

Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) offered a certificate conditional on the applicant's spouse consenting to a lien on the matrimonial home, which was registered solely in her name.

The spouse refused.

The court found that issue estoppel did not apply to a previous funding decision as the circumstances had changed (LAO's condition).

The court also determined that the applicant could not reasonably be expected to pursue an application under the Family Law Act to encumber the matrimonial home, as the Act's provisions are for marital breakdown, not ongoing relationships, and the applicant's unregistered interest was not capable of being charged.

Citing precedent, the court affirmed that state funding should not be withheld if family members refuse to assist, provided the applicant personally lacks means.

A conditional stay was issued.

This is a sentencing decision for Martial Laverdure, who was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

The court considered the offender's mental health issues, Indigenous background (applying Gladue principles), lack of significant criminal record, and the circumstances of the offence, which involved excessive speed and striking multiple pedestrians, resulting in one fatality.

Victim impact statements were also considered.

The Crown sought 2.5 years imprisonment and a 5-year driving prohibition, while the defence sought 9 months imprisonment, probation, and a 3-year driving suspension.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 months imprisonment, one year probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The appellant municipality appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it responsible for the cost of thawing a frozen waterline on its side of the property line.

The municipality had historically thawed such blockages without charge but attempted to discontinue the practice via an un-enacted policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the municipality's due diligence obligation included bearing this cost and that it was subject to an estoppel preventing it from discontinuing the service without enacting specific provisions to the contrary.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the defendants for improper use of a power of attorney.

The court found that issue estoppel applied based on previous trial findings that a defendant had misused the power of attorney for personal gain without the plaintiff's permission.

The plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest.

The claim for punitive damages was denied, as the amount fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction and a defendant had modest financial resources and recently declared bankruptcy.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, balancing the defendant's breach of trust with the plaintiff's choice to bring the action in Superior Court despite the monetary amount.

The Corporation of the Town of Petawawa appealed a decision holding it responsible for the cost of thawing a frozen waterline on a property owner's side of the property line.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the municipality's due diligence obligation to bear such costs, consistent with its past practice and its failure to enact a by-law to alter this obligation.

The court also suggested that contractual principles and estoppel could apply to the relationship between a municipality and its water users.

J.M. was found guilty on two counts of sexual assault against two child victims, T.L. and B.R., following a jury trial.

The sentencing judge accepted the complainants' evidence as substantially true, including the more egregious allegations.

Aggravating factors included the offender's position of trust, the young age of the victims, the lengthy period and invasive nature of the abuse, and the severe impact on the victims.

Mitigating factors included the absence of overt violence, no serious criminal record, and a history of employment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles for child sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust.

J.M. was sentenced to 5 years and 6 months imprisonment for the sexual assault against T.L., and 15 months concurrent for the sexual assault against B.R., with credit for pretrial custody.

Various ancillary orders were also imposed.

Sentencing for eight counts of sexual interference against underage girls who were friends of the accused's daughter and attended sleepovers at his home, together with a guilty plea to breach of recognizance.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, treated the number and age of the victims, grooming conduct, prolonged abuse, and abuse of authority as serious aggravating factors, and considered the absence of a prior record, medical issues, non-violent conduct, and lengthy stringent bail conditions as mitigating factors.

Applying the case law on credit for onerous bail, the court granted eight and a half months' credit in addition to pretrial custody credit.

A custodial sentence of 27 months concurrent on each sexual interference count, equivalent to a 36-month global sentence before credit, plus one month concurrent on the breach, was imposed along with mandatory and discretionary ancillary orders.