Michael A. Wilson

The applicants, commercial real estate developers, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Council to deny their applications for property tax rebate grants under a community improvement plan by-law.

The applicants argued that because their projects met the threshold eligibility criteria, the City was required to approve the grants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the by-law and governing legislation conferred broad discretion on the Council to consider other factors, including whether the grants were economically necessary for the projects to proceed.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded costs to the City.

The offenders, two brothers, were convicted of second degree murder for the planned and deliberate killing of an innocent 17-year-old victim, whom they mistakenly believed was associated with a group that had previously robbed one of the offenders.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 13-17 years, citing systemic anti-Black racism and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court found the murder to be exceptionally egregious, bordering on first degree murder, and sentenced both offenders to life imprisonment with a 20-year period of parole ineligibility, alongside mandatory weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the defendant of sexual assault with another person, choking to enable sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, and assault arising from multiple assaults in the complainant's apartment over several hours.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the defendant's evidence of consensual intercourse and accepted the complainant's evidence despite some sequencing errors and omissions in her police statement.

The court relied on corroborative circumstantial evidence including the state of the bedroom, surveillance footage of an attempted escape and locked apartment door, injuries, prayer-related clothing, and DNA evidence linking both men to genital and anal swabs.

The publication ban protecting the complainant's identity remains in force.

The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent credit union to return approximately $5,000,000 that had been held in their accounts.

The credit union, under administration by the regulator, had unilaterally collapsed the applicants' term deposits and appropriated the funds, claiming a right of set-off under the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, 1994 for unliquidated damages related to alleged fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court held that the statutory right of set-off does not permit a financial institution to unilaterally appropriate funds for unliquidated and disputed claims without judicial determination.

The court ordered the credit union to restore the accounts to their previous state and compensate the applicants for lost interest.

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 defendant pled guilty to assault using an imitation weapon, uttering death threats, and failure to comply.

The court considered the aggravating factor of using an imitation firearm in broad daylight and the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, rehabilitation efforts, and a difficult childhood.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence, which was reduced to a suspended sentence after applying pre-sentence custody and Duncan credits for lockdown conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, followed by two years of probation.

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.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence seized during a police search of a motel room where he was arrested.

The accused was a casual visitor in the room, which was occupied by an acquaintance.

The court held that the accused lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room and therefore had no standing to challenge the search under s. 8 of the Charter.

In the alternative, the court found no breach of s. 8, as there were no material misrepresentations in the Information to Obtain, the seizure of clothing was authorized, and an 18-day delay in reporting the seizure to a justice did not violate the Criminal Code.

The court further held that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's post-offence conduct, including cutting his hair, removing identification from his apartment, and asking his girlfriend to change her police statement, as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt in a first-degree murder trial.

The defence argued the evidence lacked probative value and was highly prejudicial.

The court held that the evidence was highly probative, not inherently prejudicial, and admissible, leaving it to the jury to determine what reasonable inferences could be drawn.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, sought to introduce evidence of two alternate sets of suspects at trial: a man known as 'Ammo' with an alleged jealousy motive, and associates of a man with a grudge against one of the accused who allegedly framed them.

The court applied the 'air of reality' test and found no evidential foundation for either theory.

The evidence regarding the alternate suspects lacked sufficient connection to the crime, including motive, opportunity, and propensity, and was therefore ruled inadmissible.

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.

On a Crown application in a judge-alone prosecution for historical sexual offences against a child, the court admitted extrinsic similar fact evidence from another alleged victim who attended the same school at the same time.

Applying the similar fact evidence framework, the court held that the live issue was whether the complainant's account reflected real events rather than fantasy, particularly in light of anticipated psychiatric evidence challenging reliability and truthfulness.

The surrounding circumstances of the alleged incidents, including age similarity, school setting, authority relationship, isolated locations, focus on genital touching, and reassuring language, supplied sufficient connectedness despite differences in number and invasiveness of acts.

The court found the risk of prejudice reduced in a judge-alone trial and concluded the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect.

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.

The accused, charged with sexual offences, sought access to psychiatric reports about the complainant, which were unsealed exhibits in earlier, unrelated criminal proceedings.

The Ontario Court of Justice denied access, requiring a production application under s. 278.3(1) of the Criminal Code, finding the complainant retained a privacy interest.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash this order.

The Superior Court found that the complainant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the reports, given they were discussed in open court and filed as unsealed exhibits.

The court held that the Dagenais/Mentuck standard for access to court records applied, not the s. 278.1 regime, and granted the certiorari application, ordering the release of the reports to the accused.

The applicant, charged with child pornography and luring offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay was approximately 43 months.

After deducting defence delay and discrete events, the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

However, applying the transitional exceptional circumstances framework, the court found the delay was justified under the previous Morin guidelines.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with robbery and accessory after the fact, brought a motion to adjourn her jury trial due to late disclosure by the Crown.

The late disclosure included a police video re-enactment of the getaway route, undisclosed photographs, and a new will-say statement from a complainant that significantly altered the evidentiary landscape.

The court found that proceeding to trial without giving the defence adequate time to investigate and adapt to the new evidence would prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.

The motion for an adjournment was granted.