4 total
The appeal of a capacity finding was dismissed as moot following the appellant's hospital discharge.
This case involved an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision that found the appellant, Gina Benz, mentally incapable of consenting to or refusing treatment for her mental disorder with antipsychotic medications.
The appellant argued the Board erred by conflating her disagreement with her diagnosis with incapacity.
The appeal was ultimately dismissed as moot because the appellant had been discharged from the hospital and was residing in the community, no longer under the respondent's care.
The court confirmed that despite the dismissal, the appellant's future right to apply for a review of any finding of incapacity would not be barred due to the passage of time.
Arbitration Motion dismissed
The defendant, John Hancock, brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action, arguing that a forum selection clause in the parties' agreement required the plaintiff, Infinite Media, to bring its claim in Boston, Massachusetts.
Infinite Media contended the clause mandated claims be brought in Ontario, specifically in the responding party's city or county within Ontario.
The court interpreted the clause holistically, considering the agreement's wording and factual matrix, and found that all claims were intended to be brought in Ontario, in the responding party's city or county.
The motion to dismiss or stay was dismissed.
Second examination for discovery ordered with substantial indemnity costs due to defendant's reprehensible obstruction.
The plaintiff moved for a further examination for discovery of the corporate representative of the New Vector defendants.
The initial examination was aborted because the representative produced had no personal knowledge, failed to prepare, and defence counsel improperly obstructed questioning.
The court found that the defendant's conduct in thwarting discovery constituted special circumstances justifying a second examination.
The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to produce a properly prepared representative and pay substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.
Bail denied in first-degree murder case with strong DNA and circumstantial evidence.
Two accused charged with first degree murder applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.
The Crown relied on extensive circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage, eyewitness accounts of the shooting, cell phone records, and DNA evidence linking the accused’s vehicle to the victim.
The court found the Crown’s case to be overwhelming and concluded there was a high probability of conviction.
The proposed sureties, largely family members, were found inadequate to provide meaningful supervision or ensure compliance with bail conditions.
Detention was ordered on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, including concerns about flight risk, potential interference with the administration of justice, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
