M. Brown

This criminal trial concerned one count of sexual assault against the accused, J.D., involving his grandchild, V.C. V.C. alleged multiple incidents of sexual touching over several years.

The court heard testimony from V.C., who adopted her prior video statements to police, and from V.C.'s grandmother (J.D.'s common-law partner), who testified for the defence.

The court assessed V.C.'s credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies in her testimony and a lack of present memory regarding key details, despite finding her an honest witness.

The grandmother's testimony, which was accepted, contradicted the frequency of the alleged incidents.

Applying principles for assessing young witnesses' evidence, the court found that the Crown had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to concerns about the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

J.D. was acquitted.

Mark Godwin pleaded not guilty to impaired operation and over 80 mg.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the police fulfilled their s. 10(b) obligations to facilitate access to counsel, the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable (no s. 8 breach), and the continued detention was lawful (no s. 9 breach) given the accused's high blood alcohol readings.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges, concluding that the breath test results were admissible and that there was ample evidence of impairment even without the readings.

The plaintiff, Canada Forgings Inc. (CanForge), sued Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) alleging breach of a duty of fairness in a procurement process for nuclear reactor components.

CanForge claimed AECL unfairly favored a competitor, Patriot Forge Co., for end fitting forgings for the Bruce and Lepreau projects.

The court dismissed CanForge's claim on two primary grounds: first, it was statute-barred as the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was formally added to the Statement of Claim; second, no Contract A existed between CanForge and AECL, meaning no implied duty of fairness was owed to CanForge as a subcontractor.

The court also assessed damages hypothetically, finding no lost profits even if the claim had succeeded.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants, the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority, to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The underlying action involves a minor plaintiff who sustained catastrophic injuries after falling from a trail at Albion Falls Park.

The court reviewed the refused questions, applying the test for relevance under Rule 31.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the defendants to answer several questions related to prior safety concerns, incident reports, and the identities of individuals with knowledge, while upholding refusals for irrelevant questions.

Success was divided, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against a minor, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of the trial was 43.5 months.

The court deducted significant periods of defence delay and explicit waivers, resulting in a net delay of 20.75 months, well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate that this was a clear case of unreasonable delay and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with sexual assaults of two men and sought a stay of charges based on Charter violations (sections 7, 8, and 15) challenging the constitutionality of police authority to publish media releases identifying the accused and detailing accusations, as well as on grounds of lost evidence due to police negligence.

The court ruled that the determination of whether the Crown proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt would precede consideration of the constitutional challenge and lost evidence issues.

During a jury trial for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a minor complainant, the Crown called the complainant's mother to testify.

In response to a question from the Crown, the mother stated that she believed the allegations because her daughter would never lie about something like that.

The defence moved for a mistrial on the basis that this constituted inadmissible oath-helping evidence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the mother's statement caused irremediable prejudice to the accused that could not be cured by a limiting instruction to the jury.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from allegations that he sexually touched and propositioned a 15-year-old complainant on three occasions during the summer of 2013.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The defendant and his wife denied all allegations, and the defendant's niece provided corroborating evidence regarding one of the alleged incidents.

The court found material implausibilities in the complainant's account, particularly regarding her presence in the defendant's home on the evening of the Bellwoods Park incident and her return to the defendant's home on the Thanksgiving weekend despite prior negative experiences.

The court also found the defendant's niece to be a credible and persuasive witness whose evidence contradicted the complainant's account of the Canada Day weekend incident.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused stood trial on multiple charges including human trafficking, sexual assault, and prostitution-related offences involving three young women.

The Crown alleged the accused exploited the complainants' drug addictions to force them into prostitution.

The court found the evidence of the two adult complainants unreliable due to severe crack cocaine addiction and inconsistencies, and accepted the accused's evidence that he was merely their drug dealer, resulting in acquittals on those counts.

However, the court convicted the accused of attempting to procure a 16-year-old complainant into prostitution and breaching his recognizance by being alone with her.

In a proposed securities class action arising from the takeover of a mining company through a joint bid on the Toronto Stock Exchange, multiple defendant groups moved to transfer the proceeding from London, Ontario to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the transfer, asserting that the dispute had multinational elements and that no venue factor strongly favoured Toronto.

The court held that the defendants failed to establish that a transfer was desirable in the interests of justice and dismissed the transfer motions.

The plaintiffs also moved to stay a related statutory valuation proceeding involving dissenting shareholders under the Business Corporations Act.

The court granted a temporary stay, finding substantial overlap in factual and expert valuation issues and concluding that a stay would avoid duplication of proceedings and promote access to justice.