Michael A. Wilson

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.

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.

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.

The applicant, a self-represented accused in custody facing serious sexual assault charges, sought an order for broader internet and email access to prepare for his upcoming jury trial.

He argued that his current limited access to and disclosure review was insufficient for researching complex legal, technical, and scientific issues, and for contacting potential counsel or experts.

The court dismissed the application, affirming that while an accused has the right to self-representation, this right is not absolute and does not entitle them to the same resources as if they were not in custody.

The court considered the significant security risks and practical difficulties for correctional staff in monitoring broad internet access, and noted that Amicus counsel was available to assist with research.

The applicant, Centerra Gold Inc., sought a permanent injunction against its former director, Tengiz Bolturuk, for breaching his fiduciary duties and duty of confidentiality.

Bolturuk, nominated by the Kyrgyz Republic's state-owned corporation, was found to have secretly orchestrated the takeover of Centerra's Kumtor gold mine by the Kyrgyz Republic while still a director, disclosing confidential information and subsequently becoming the External Manager of the seized mine.

The court found that Bolturuk's actions constituted a clear usurpation of corporate opportunity and a flagrant breach of his duties, rejecting his justifications.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction over a former director for breaches stemming from their position and found damages to be an inadequate remedy.

Bolturuk's cross-motion to set aside an interim injunction was dismissed.

The permanent injunction was granted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against Bolturuk.

This motion concerned compelling answers to outstanding undertakings, under advisements, and refusals from the defendants' discovery.

The applicants, Symtech and Kelson, sought documents related to delays caused by a bankrupt subcontractor (Blackrock), an insurance claim made by the defendants (Bird) on a "Subguard" policy, and acceleration change orders to other trades.

The defendants resisted on grounds of relevance and privilege.

The court ordered production of documents related to Blackrock delays, the Subguard claim, and acceleration change orders, finding them relevant.

However, the court upheld litigation and settlement privilege for Bird's internal assessments of Symtech and Kelson's claims, provided these privileged documents are itemized.

This decision from a Gardiner hearing addresses factual determinations for sentencing after Curtis Murray and Corey Murray were convicted of second-degree murder.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, motivated by revenge against a specific group, and that the victim was killed under the mistaken belief he was part of that group.

While the judge's legal view was that these facts would typically constitute first-degree murder, the jury's verdict of second-degree murder was respected.

The court also determined that Curtis Murray was the leader and instigator, with Corey Murray being a willing but more of a follower, which was considered a mitigating factor for Corey.

The accused, Michael Lopez, was found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, receiving financial benefit from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, assault with a weapon, threatening death, obstructing justice, and two counts of assault.

He also pled guilty to two counts of breaching a recognizance.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, and the significant aggravating factors of the prolonged exploitation and violence against a vulnerable complainant, balanced against the accused's rehabilitative efforts during pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, reduced to one year further imprisonment after accounting for four years of pre-sentence credit, followed by a three-year probation order with specific conditions.

The defendants Chamath Palihapitiya and El Investco 1 Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs lacked evidence for their claims, particularly conspiracy.

The plaintiffs opposed, asserting that the conspiracy claims against the moving parties could not be severed from claims against other defendants not party to the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that granting summary judgment for a subset of defendants risked inefficiencies, conflicting findings, and multiple appeals, especially given the proximity of the trial and the intertwined factual matrix.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a pharmaceutical patent dispute.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs in the cause was not appropriate and awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis: $15,000 from Takeda and $25,000 from Abbott, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

This appeal concerns damages claimed by Apotex for lost sales of its generic drug Apo-lansoprazole due to proceedings initiated by Abbott and Takeda under section 6 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The motion judge dismissed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that Apotex would have received regulatory approval on April 17, 2007, but for the section 6 proceedings.

The appellants argued that Apotex's submission was deficient because it lacked a high-fat meal bioequivalence study.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no legal requirement for such a study and ample evidence supporting approval on the original submission.

This case conference in a proposed class action by consumers against Uber for anti-competitive conduct established a timetable for a certification motion.

The court noted a parallel class action (Heller Action) by drivers against the same defendants, where drivers sought employee status, contrasting with the current action's pleading of drivers as self-employed.

The defendants are considering a motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the Heller Action regarding driver status.

Despite this, a timetable for the certification motion was set, with flexibility for future revisions.

Anna La Force was found guilty of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as the violent, prolonged, and premeditated nature of the attack on a "Good Samaritan," and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included her youth, lack of criminal record, and family support.

The court also addressed the collateral consequence of potential deportation due to her permanent resident status, affirming that while it can be considered, it cannot compromise fundamental sentencing principles.

A sentence of 20 months' imprisonment for aggravated assault and a concurrent 12 months for assault with a weapon was imposed, along with probation and ancillary orders.

Anna La Force was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and unlawful entry into a dwelling.

The charges stemmed from an attack on Allison Robinson, a friend of Luisa Botelho, with whom La Force and Botelho were both in a relationship with Cavin Banfield.

The court found La Force to be the aggressor, rejecting her self-defence claim.

She was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that La Force was in the dwelling without lawful excuse, leading to an acquittal on the unlawful entry charge.