Michael Doyle

The defendant was charged with attempted robbery of an electronics store.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including security footage showing a masked individual attempting to enter the store, followed by a police pursuit and dynamic takedown of the suspect vehicle.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the individual in the footage based on a constellation of distinctive clothing features.

The court also concluded that the defendant's actions of wearing a balaclava and gloves on a hot day, covering a clothing logo with tape, and tugging on the locked store door established the requisite mens rea and constituted acts beyond mere preparation.

A finding of guilt was entered.

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, the court reviewed the defendants' updated Costs Outline.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs fixed at $17,542.69, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

Following a summary judgment motion regarding a defaulted home purchase, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff had claimed $887,915 in damages but recovered only $10,000, with the claim for carrying costs proceeding to trial.

The court found that the defendants were entirely successful on the carrying costs issue and successful overall on the motion.

The court awarded the defendants their costs on a partial indemnity scale, directing them to submit a revised bill of costs.