Michael Donald

The appellant, Gillian Boere, appealed her conviction for sexual exploitation and her 12-month prison sentence.

The trial judge had found her in a position of trust towards the 16-year-old complainant.

The appeal raised three issues: the trial judge's finding of a position of trust, the assessment of the complainant's credibility and reliability, and the dismissal of a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence as moot.

The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings on the position of trust, the complainant's credibility, and the appropriate application of the mootness doctrine regarding the constitutional challenge.

This decision concerns a motion for costs brought by the defendants following the plaintiff's discontinuance of a defamation action.

The plaintiff had initially filed in Small Claims Court, then transferred the action to Superior Court, increasing the claim tenfold, before discontinuing it prior to discoveries.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff's claim lacked bona fides and was vexatious, especially given an earlier police investigation identified the plaintiff as a suspect in online death threats against the defendants' son.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 23.05 and the Courts of Justice Act, found the plaintiff's conduct exceptional and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity scale, concluding the claim was not bona fide and lacked justification.

The court fixed costs at $27,000.

The plaintiff, Alberto Becerra, sought leave to issue a fresh as amended statement of claim in a construction lien action, aiming to increase the claim quantum, add new grounds of recovery including unjust enrichment, punitive damages, and claims related to an unrelated prior project.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that leave ought not be granted as the motion was neither necessary nor would it expedite the resolution of the issues, as required by the Construction Lien Act.

Furthermore, even on the merits, the proposed amendments were largely statute-barred under the Limitations Act, constituted improper joinder of unrelated claims, or attempted to join a breach of trust claim, which is precluded by the Construction Lien Act.