Maurice Mattis

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and exposing his daughter to sexually explicit material.

The offences allegedly occurred when the daughter was 8 and 9 years old, during visits to the accused's apartment following her parents' separation.

The accused denied the allegations, arguing he was never alone with the complainant and that the allegations were fabricated by the mother to gain an advantage in family court.

The court admitted evidence of the accused's prior physical violence to provide context and explain the complainant's delayed disclosure.

Applying the common sense approach to child witnesses, the court found the complainant credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's exculpatory evidence due to material inconsistencies and deliberate lies.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The applicant brought a motion for exclusive possession of the jointly-owned matrimonial home and an interim restraining order against the respondent.

The respondent had recently returned to the home from the UK and engaged in intimidating and verbally abusive behaviour towards the applicant and their adult children.

The court found that the applicant and children had reasonable grounds to fear for their psychological and physical safety.

The motion for a restraining order and exclusive possession was granted.

The respondent wife brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant husband's claim for an equalization payment as statute-barred.

The central issue was the parties' date of separation, with the wife claiming 1986 and the husband claiming 2015.

The court reviewed the conflicting evidence regarding their living arrangements, financial interdependence, and relationship dynamics over a 29-year period.

Concluding that credibility issues prevented a determination on the written record alone, the court declined to grant summary judgment and ordered a time-limited mini-trial to hear oral evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for breach of contract regarding the assignment of an interest in a sports agency corporation.

The defendant conceded the breach and the amount owing but argued he was not personally liable, asserting he contracted on behalf of his corporation.

The court applied the principle that a party wishing to benefit from the corporate veil must make it clear they are contracting on behalf of a corporation.

Finding the contract unambiguous and signed by the defendant personally, the court held the defendant personally liable and granted judgment for the outstanding balance of USD $927,535.51.

The accused was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he slashed the victim's hand with a machete.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought eighteen months.

The court sentenced the accused to two years less a day in custody, minus credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the use of weapons.

The accused, charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar, brought an application to have the defence of self-defence put to the jury.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it lacked an evidential foundation.

The trial judge reviewed the testimony and surveillance video, which showed the accused chasing the victims and attacking them with a machete after the initial threat had subsided.

The court found that even if the accused had a subjective belief and defensive purpose, his responsive acts were not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The application was dismissed as there was no air of reality to the defence.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

At trial, a civilian witness testified to seeing the appellant assault the driver of a vehicle.

The appellant claimed he was the victim and that the driver's injuries, including blood, resulted from her breaking her fingernails while punching him.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence, erroneously finding that the police officer never mentioned broken nails, when the officer had actually testified to seeing cracked nails with blood under them.

The Superior Court of Justice held that this misapprehension of evidence played an essential role in the trial judge's reasoning process for rejecting the appellant's defence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with robbery as an aider and abettor.

The Crown's case relied on video surveillance, an oral utterance made upon arrest, and a fingerprint found on a duct tape wrapper in the getaway car.

Following a voir dire, the court excluded the oral utterance under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that police breached the accused's s. 10(b) rights by showing him a surveillance photo to elicit a response before advising him of his right to counsel for the robbery charge.

On the trial merits, the court found that the remaining circumstantial evidence—a general resemblance in the video and the fingerprint—raised a strong suspicion but failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.