M.D. McArthur

The applicant brought a Charter application challenging the facial validity of a tele-warrant issued for her residence during a drug trafficking investigation.

The court found that while there were reasonable and probable grounds to search other locations associated with the main target, the evidence connecting the applicant's residence to drug activity amounted to mere suspicion based solely on a single visit by the target.

The court concluded the search violated section 8 of the Charter and excluded the seized methamphetamine under section 24(2), finding the serious intrusion into a private residence outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow the complainant to testify at trial by closed-circuit television (CCTV).

The accused opposed the application.

The court considered the factors under s. 486.2(3) and found that the complainant, a mature and articulate adult without disabilities, was capable of providing a full and candid account of the allegations in open court.

The court noted that the complainant had previously participated in family court proceedings with the accused in the same courtroom without incident.

The application was dismissed, with the court noting that pauses or breaks would be available to the complainant if needed during her testimony.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application seeking a declaration that text messages between himself and the complainant were not 'records' under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The messages primarily involved the complainant asking the accused for money to purchase a property and expressing frustration.

Applying the framework from R. v. J.J., the court found that the messages did not contain highly sensitive personal information going to the complainant's biographical core.

The application was granted, and the court declared the text messages were not records.

The plaintiffs, representing the estates and family of two murder victims, sued the Brantford Police Services Board in negligence, alleging the police failed to respond to citizens' reports of suspicious activity prior to the murders.

The defendant brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the police owed a duty to the public at large, not a private law duty of care to the specific victims, as there was no advance notice of a specific risk of harm to them.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The Crown closed its case in a trial where the accused were charged with possession of various prohibited substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The accused brought motions for directed verdicts of acquittal on all counts.

The court granted the directed verdict of acquittal for the charge of possession of property obtained by crime, finding no reasonable inference could connect the seized cash to drug trafficking.

However, the court dismissed the motions for the drug trafficking charges, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of constructive possession and intent to traffic for a reasonable jury to potentially convict.

The appellant was convicted of three driving offences after fleeing from police.

The sole issue at trial was identity, which relied heavily on the recognition evidence of a police officer who had prior interactions with the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the extent of the officer's familiarity with the appellant's deceased brother.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while a misapprehension occurred, it was not material and did not play an essential part in the trial judge's reasoning process, as the officer's familiarity was well-established through other significant interactions.

The offender pled guilty to possessing a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle without authorization.

The court considered the impact of systemic anti-black racism and the offender's experiences as a biracial youth, applying the principles from R. v. Morris.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes, the court imposed a sentence of 3 years and 6 months, reduced to 25 months after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The plaintiff underwent a reverse ileostomy surgery.

In the recovery room, a nurse erroneously administered a large dose of Heparin instead of Voluven.

The plaintiff subsequently suffered massive internal bleeding, compartment syndrome, and required further surgeries.

The trial was bifurcated to determine liability.

The court evaluated expert testimony and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Heparin caused the bleeding, as the evidence suggested the bleeding originated from blood vessels that spasmed during surgery and relaxed post-operatively.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for the deficiency owing on an investment loan after the defendant defaulted.

The defendant alleged fraud by his investment advisor, claimed the advisor was an agent of the plaintiff, and raised the defence of non est factum, arguing he did not receive proper independent legal advice.

The court found no evidence of an agency relationship between the plaintiff and the advisor, noted the defendant signed an independent legal advice certificate, and rejected the non est factum defence.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for the deficiency and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta while a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant, an Alberta resident.

The plaintiff commenced an action in Ontario.

The defendant brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The court applied the Van Breda framework and found no presumptive connecting factors to Ontario, as the tort occurred in Alberta and the defendant resided there.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence, noting the defendant consistently challenged jurisdiction.

The action was stayed.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' 11-year-old child from the respondent mother in Ontario to himself in British Columbia.

The father had moved to B.C. in 2017, which constituted a material change in circumstances.

The child expressed a consistent and genuine desire to live with her father during the school year and her mother during the summer.

A Voice of the Child report confirmed the child's wishes were independent and not the result of coaching.

The court found both parents capable and loving, but gave significant weight to the child's clear and realistic wishes given her age and maturity.

The motion was granted, and the child's primary residence was changed to the father.

The moving party sought to prove the 2017 Will of her late father, which left the estate entirely to her and disinherited her two brothers.

The respondent brothers challenged the Will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, failure to know and appreciate the contents, and undue influence by the moving party.

The court found that the drafting solicitor's evidence substantially answered the concerns regarding capacity and knowledge.

However, the court found a minimal evidentiary basis existed regarding undue influence due to the potential for domination in the parent-child relationship and conflicting evidence.

The court ordered the production of solicitor and financial records and adjourned the motion for directions.

The moving party father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of the parties' 20-month-old child from Calgary to London, Ontario, and interim custody.

The responding party mother had moved to Calgary with the child following an incident that led to criminal charges against the father and bail conditions prohibiting contact.

The court found that a status quo had been established with the mother in Calgary over the past six months.

Applying the best interests of the child test and considering the reluctance to upset the status quo on an interim basis, the court dismissed the father's motion and ordered that the child remain in the interim care and custody of the mother in Calgary.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the vehicle manufacturer and dealer.

In a second action, the plaintiffs sued their insurer for failing to preserve the vehicle.

The insurer issued a third-party claim against the plaintiffs' lawyers, alleging they were negligent in failing to preserve the evidence.

The third-party lawyers moved to strike the claim.

The court granted the motion, holding that any negligence by the lawyers fell within the scope of their agency and would be attributable to the plaintiffs, making the third-party claim unnecessary.

The plaintiff and the deceased entered into a jewelry business partnership and obtained life insurance policies on each other.

After the deceased passed away, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for the $250,000 insurance proceeds and a $42,000 promissory note.

The defendants counterclaimed, arguing the insurance proceeds were meant to fund a buy-sell agreement for the deceased's shares or were held in a constructive trust.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding no evidence of a buy-sell agreement or constructive trust, and declared the plaintiff entitled to the insurance proceeds.

The claim regarding the promissory note was sent to trial due to conflicting evidence.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action brought a motion under Rule 30.10 seeking production of a Crown Brief from the non-party Attorney General of Ontario.

The Attorney General objected on the basis that the motion was premature, as statements of defence had not yet been filed.

The court agreed, holding that relevance cannot be established in a vacuum before pleadings are closed.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew it once pleadings are closed.