Michael A. Wilson

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including robbery, dangerous driving, and firearms offences, arising from two violent carjackings.

The offender, who had a significant youth and adult criminal record for similar offences, used a firearm and gratuitous violence during the carjackings.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the offender's record and the violence used, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, the offender's youth, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a planned robbery that resulted in a gunfight and the death of a bystander.

The court found as an aggravating fact that the offender knew his accomplice would be armed and that the robbery victim would likely be armed.

Taking into account the offender's youth, guilty plea, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the court sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 12, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff IT consulting firm moved for summary judgment against the defendant for over $6.5 million in unpaid invoices for software development projects.

The defendant argued there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms such as scope of work and compensation.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether a valid contract existed and whether the plaintiff complied with it.

Additionally, the court granted a motion by the UK-based defendants to dismiss the action against them for lack of jurisdiction, finding no contract was made with them in Ontario and the location of the plaintiff's deprivation in an unjust enrichment claim was insufficient to ground jurisdiction.

The applicants sought a judicial recount of the ballots cast in the 45th General Election for the electoral district of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore, where the initial count showed a 77-vote margin.

The court granted the application based on credible affidavit evidence of counting errors, without requiring proof of materiality.

During the recount, the court ruled on numerous disputed ballots, strictly applying the mandatory requirement for a mark in the circle while objectively assessing whether extraneous marks could identify the elector.

The court also admitted special ballots bearing initials on the reverse, finding they were likely placed by election officers.

The recount concluded with the leading candidate's margin reduced to four votes, confirming the election result.

The defendant was tried for the second-degree murder of his parents and the attempted murder of his brother.

In a bifurcated trial, the court previously found the actus reus proven.

Following a psychiatric assessment, the defence abandoned a claim of not criminally responsible.

The court found the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for all charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The nature, number, and location of the stab wounds inflicted on the parents demonstrated an intent to cause bodily harm likely to cause death, while the planned ambush of the brother demonstrated a specific intent to kill.

The self-represented accused brought a stage one O'Connor application seeking production of various records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, including policies on inmate transfers, the SAFER program, security video, and movement logs.

The accused argued these records were relevant to an anticipated Charter application alleging that his transfers and institutional restrictions impeded his ability to make full answer and defence.

The court granted the application in part, ordering the Ministry to produce relevant policies and specific movement records to the court for stage two review, while dismissing requests for broad video footage and unrelated inmate records that failed to meet the 'likely relevant' threshold.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds of unreasonable delay.

The applicant was charged with 10 offences on January 11, 2024, including robbery, aggravated assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, and various firearm-related charges.

The trial was scheduled to proceed August 11-15, 2025, approximately 19.1 months after the charge.

The court found that while there was significant delay caused by Crown disclosure failures and mutual neglect by both parties, the defence also contributed substantially to delay through failure to make a timely election, silent reservation of election, and unavailability for multiple offered trial dates.

After deducting defence delay of 59 days, the net delay was 17.2 months, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice trials.

The application was dismissed.

The court granted the applicant trustee’s request to pass accounts, dispense with a formal passing for a subsequent period, approve compensation, remove herself as trustee, and appoint CIBC Trust as successor.

The court found the trustee’s compensation reasonable, the objections of the respondent Michael Wilson unsubstantiated, and awarded increased costs against Michael due to his conduct.

The decision addresses the administration of a testamentary trust, the entitlement to compensation, and the allocation of costs in estate litigation.

In an administrative law appeal concerning federal telecommunications regulation, the Court interpreted the term “transmission line” in ss. 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act and the scope of the CRTC’s access-regime jurisdiction over public property.

The majority held that “transmission line” refers to wireline infrastructure and does not include 5G small cell antennas, so the CRTC cannot adjudicate access disputes for antenna siting under that regime.

The Court emphasized text, context, legislative history, and statutory purpose, including Parliament’s allocation of antenna site-approval powers under the Radiocommunication Act.

A two-judge dissent would have interpreted the term to include 5G small cells based on ordinary meaning, statutory coherence, and technological neutrality.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to specified respondents.

The plaintiff, Ojohome Canada Ltd. o/a Houseful, sought an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to restore its access to live feed data from the Toronto Region MLS service provided by TRREB.

The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff did not meet the high threshold for a mandatory order and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The decision discusses the contractual and regulatory context of MLS data access and the requirements for injunctive relief.

The decision concerns the actus reus of two counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted murder.

Alpha Henry was found guilty of unlawfully causing the deaths of his parents, Veronica and Colin Henry, and attempting to murder his brother, Daniel Henry.

The court found the evidence against the accused overwhelming, including forensic, video, and circumstantial evidence, and rejected the defence theory that Daniel was the true perpetrator.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a videotaped statement made by the defendant, Alpha Henry, to Detective McGinn, following the discovery of two deceased individuals at the defendant's residence.

The defence challenged the statement's voluntariness, arguing it was not the product of an operating mind and was obtained under oppressive circumstances, citing sleep deprivation, physical injuries, mental health concerns, and a lack of understanding of legal jeopardy.

The Crown contended the statement was voluntary and the defendant was alert, coherent, and eager to provide his account.

Applying the Oickle factors, the court found no evidence of threats, promises, inducements, or police trickery.

The court determined that despite some police omissions regarding medical inquiries, the circumstances were not oppressive, and the defendant possessed an operating mind, understanding his rights and the potential use of his statement.

Consequently, the defendant's videotaped statement was ruled admissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after driving at an extreme rate of speed on the Gardiner Expressway and colliding with another vehicle.

The collision killed the passenger of the other vehicle and catastrophically injured the driver.

The offender fled the scene and had a horrendous driving record with numerous speeding convictions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 5 years in prison for the death and 3 years concurrent for the bodily harm, along with a 10-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was charged with drug and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at a residence.

During the search, police found drugs and cash, and subsequently questioned the accused without providing rights to counsel or a caution, eliciting statements about vehicle keys.

The police used these statements to seize the keys and search two vehicles, locating firearms.

The court found egregious violations of the accused's ss. 8 and 10(b) Charter rights, noting that senior officers acted carelessly, showed blatant disregard for Charter rights, and misled the court.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearms evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akazaki J. dated January 2, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.

D.H., charged with sexual assault, brought an application seeking an order to compel the Crown to obtain and review an RCMP investigative file related to a third party (W.B.) who was found with drugs in the complainant's apartment.

D.H. argued the file was relevant to the complainant's character and credibility.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the RCMP file constituted a third-party record, not subject to the Crown's first-party disclosure duty (Stinchecombe).

The proper procedure for obtaining such records is an O'Connor application, which requires the defence to subpoena the records directly from the third party.

The court also found the material unlikely to be relevant to the complainant's credibility, deeming the request a "fishing expedition."

The court issued supplementary reasons regarding costs for an interim injunction motion.

The defendants sought to revisit the costs award, arguing that an offer to settle the motion should attract costs consequences under Rule 49.

The court found that the defendants' offer was insufficient as it did not fully address the plaintiff's concerns, particularly regarding non-solicitation, and that the plaintiff had obtained what it sought.

The court dismissed the defendants' request to revisit the costs, affirming the original costs award to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, an insurance brokerage, brought a motion for interim injunctive relief to prevent former employees and rival brokerages from using confidential client information and soliciting clients.

The individual defendants resigned en masse and allegedly used client lists from the plaintiff.

The defendants argued an injunction was unnecessary due to an undertaking not to use confidential information.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm due to the alienation of confidential information, and that the balance of inconvenience favored the plaintiff.

An interim injunction was granted prohibiting the defendants from possessing, disclosing, using (including for solicitation), altering, destroying, copying, removing, or transferring the plaintiff's confidential information, including information acquired mentally.

A separate non-solicitation order was not granted, as the confidential information injunction was deemed sufficient.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant, an Uber driver, was charged with three counts of sexual assault.

He pleaded guilty to two counts but denied the third.

The Crown sought to admit evidence from the admitted assaults as similar fact evidence for the remaining charge.

The court ruled the similar fact evidence admissible, finding its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact, particularly given the striking similarities in the circumstances of the assaults and the unlikelihood of coincidence.

The defendant was found guilty of the remaining sexual assault charge.