Michael G. Quigley

The accused, a nightclub bouncer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault following an altercation while ejecting patrons.

The accused kicked one patron repeatedly while he was on the ground, breaking his rib, and punched another patron in the face, fracturing his orbital bone.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm for the kicking, ruling the force was excessive and not in self-defence.

However, the court acquitted the accused of aggravated assault for the punch, finding he acted in self-defence after the second patron grabbed him from behind and appeared ready to strike.

The Crown applied to admit videotaped statements of two complainants under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code in a historical sexual abuse prosecution.

The court held that the governing inquiry was whether the recordings were made within a reasonable time after the alleged offences, having regard to the provision’s purposes of preserving an early account and reducing the stress of trial testimony for child complainants.

Delays of approximately four and one-third years, and in one instance more than five years, were found too long to preserve the reliability rationale of the provision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought directions under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act regarding servers seized in Canada pursuant to a warrant issued to assist a United States criminal investigation.

The applicant proposed that a “clean team” of United States investigators conduct a forensic examination of the servers in Canada and prepare a report to the court identifying potentially relevant evidence before any sending order.

The respondent argued that privacy interests required an independent Canadian forensic examiner instead.

The court held that the clean team proposal, subject to safeguards including supervision by Canadian authorities and prohibition on disclosure to investigators without court authorization, adequately protected privacy interests and complied with the Act and Charter principles.

The court emphasized the importance of international comity and cooperation in mutual legal assistance matters and granted the requested order.

Two accused were charged with forgery‑related offences, tax fraud, and money laundering arising from a business producing false identification cards at a Toronto storefront.

The Crown alleged the moving party operated the enterprise through nominee businesses and bank accounts while failing to report significant income, thereby defrauding the federal government.

The court found that forged identification cards were manufactured and sold through the business and that the principal accused was the directing mind of the operation and the beneficiary of its revenues.

However, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the second accused knowingly participated in the offences or benefited from the income flowing through accounts in his name.

The court convicted the principal accused of forgery‑related offences and tax fraud but acquitted the co‑accused and dismissed the money laundering counts.

Following a successful motion and the dismissal of a cross-motion for leave to bring a motion for security for costs, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $10,000, while the opposing party argued for a reduced award.

The court accepted the successful party’s submissions, finding the time spent and counsel fees reasonable, including preparation and attendance time for the motion.

The court also considered additional telephone attendances required to finalize the order.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis in the amount claimed.

Following an earlier ruling on a motion, the court addressed a dispute concerning the allocation of agreed costs.

The parties agreed that $9,000 in costs would be payable to two respondents, but the applicants argued that additional respondents should share liability for those costs.

The court found that the additional respondents had been present only on a watching brief and were not part of the bifurcated application.

The court rejected the applicants’ position and ordered that those respondents should not share liability.

Instead, the applicants were ordered to pay additional costs to those respondents for having to participate in the costs submissions.

Following a family law trial, the court settled the wording of the final order addressing support and property issues between former spouses.

The applicant’s claim for spousal support was dismissed, while ongoing child support and contributions to section 7 expenses were ordered in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

The respondent retained the matrimonial home subject to equalization, with the applicant receiving a net payment representing his share of equity after accounting for equalization obligations.

Additional provisions required annual financial disclosure and set terms for payment and enforcement of support.

The accused applied under s. 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code to terminate a sealing order over materials related to an earlier search warrant that had been authorized but never executed.

The accused argued the earlier Information to Obtain was necessary to assess the credibility and reliability of confidential informant information and to prepare a Garofoli challenge to a later executed warrant that led to firearm charges.

The court held that Stinchcombe disclosure obligations in a Garofoli context are limited to materials placed before the authorizing justice for the warrant under challenge.

Because the earlier warrant materials were not before the issuing justice for the executed warrant and the accused failed to establish likely relevance, disclosure was not warranted.

The court further held that unsealing procedures cannot be used as a collateral method to obtain disclosure beyond the Garofoli framework.

The application to terminate the sealing order was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review after a justice of the peace denied release on the secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

A new release plan with two sureties, strict house arrest, and $60,000 in pledged sureties was advanced as a material change in circumstances.

The reviewing judge accepted that the new plan constituted credible new evidence potentially addressing the secondary ground by mitigating the risk of re‑offending.

However, the court held that the new plan did not materially affect the tertiary ground analysis, which was driven by the gravity of the offences, the strength of the prosecution’s case, the presence of a loaded firearm alongside significant quantities of drugs, and the prospect of a lengthy custodial sentence.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded detention remained necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The insured sought a declaration that the insurer was required to pay increased rebuilding costs following a total-loss residential fire where reconstruction required upgrades mandated by the Ontario Building Code.

The insurer relied on a policy exclusion denying coverage for increased costs caused by the operation of any by-law regulating construction.

The court held that the exclusion clause applied only to municipal by-laws and not to provincial regulations such as the Building Code.

Because the increased costs arose from Building Code requirements rather than a by-law, the exclusion did not apply.

The court ordered the insurer to pay the additional costs associated with the mandated upgrades.

The applicants sought declarations that neighbouring landowners had no interest in their waterfront property and requested removal of a notice registered under s. 71 of the Land Titles Act claiming an unregistered right-of-way to the St. Lawrence River.

The respondents relied on historical deeds granting a 66‑foot right-of-way and a quitclaim deed confirming the easement.

The court held that the applicants’ predecessor had actual notice of the easement because the relevant instruments were registered within the 40‑year chain of title under the Registry Act.

The court further held that the description of the right-of-way was sufficiently certain and constituted a valid local description.

The applicants’ challenge to the easement therefore failed.

The defendants brought a motion seeking particulars of the plaintiff insurer’s claim, arguing that the statement of claim failed to comply with Rule 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by not identifying specific contractual provisions or statutory sections relied upon.

The dispute arose from a fire loss claim where the insurer alleged it overpaid the insured following an appraisal under s.128 of the Insurance Act.

The court held that pleadings must contain concise material facts but not detailed evidence or legal authorities.

It concluded that the plaintiff was not required to identify specific sections of the insurance contract or the Insurance Act at the pleading stage.

The defendants’ motion for further particulars was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking substantial interim child support, retroactive child support, spousal support, and interim costs arising from a relationship that produced a child.

The respondent acknowledged paternity but disputed that the parties were spouses under the Family Law Act and sought an adjournment to permit questioning regarding the applicant’s claimed budget and the nature of the relationship.

The court granted the adjournment but imposed financial terms.

It ordered interim child support of $25,000 per month retroactive to the commencement of the claim and continuing until further order or year‑end.

The court rejected both the applicant’s request for $50,000 per month and the respondent’s proposed $15,000 per month as inappropriate in the circumstances.

The accused applied for a detention order review seeking reinstatement of bail after a justice of the peace revoked earlier releases under s. 524 of the Criminal Code following new allegations of uttering threats while on bail.

The applicant argued that one charge had been improperly before the court and that subsequent developments constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court reviewed the transcript of the earlier hearing and found no factual or legal error in the justice of the peace’s decision and no merit to allegations of fraud or improper evidence.

The court also held that no material change in circumstances had been established and that the proposed release plan, consisting only of supervision through the Toronto Bail Program without a surety, failed to address concerns under the secondary ground.

Detention remained justified due to the substantial likelihood of re‑offending and risks to public safety.

The accused applied to vary his bail recognizance to permit him to resume producing medical marijuana at an industrial premises while facing charges for drug production and related offences.

He argued that his prior personal-use production licence remained valid due to the Federal Court’s interlocutory injunction in Allard v Canada preserving certain licences under the former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations.

The court held that the applicant did not meet the criteria for protection under the Allard injunction or Health Canada’s transitional administrative policy because his authorization to possess had expired before the relevant injunction date.

As a result, he could obtain medical marijuana through lawful sources but could not personally cultivate it.

The application to vary the recognizance was dismissed.

The applicant sought a second bail review following a prior Superior Court decision denying judicial interim release on a charge of robbery with a firearm.

The application argued a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan involving different family sureties and proposed employment.

The court held that merely proposing new sureties did not constitute a material change where the plan remained substantively similar to the earlier proposal rejected by the court.

Given the applicant’s criminal history, prior breach of bail conditions, the seriousness of the allegations, and the strength of the Crown’s case, the court found continued detention justified on the secondary ground and also on the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

Sentencing following conviction for a violent home invasion robbery involving forcible confinement and threats with knives against occupants of a residence.

The offender was a first‑time offender who maintained his innocence despite conviction after trial.

The court reviewed the sentencing range for home invasion robberies, noting appellate guidance that such offences typically attract penitentiary terms of four to thirteen years depending on severity.

Aggravating factors included the home invasion context, the use of knives, and the traumatic impact on the victims.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, supportive family background, and strong prospects for rehabilitation.

A five‑year global sentence was imposed, with one year of credit granted for five years spent on strict house‑arrest bail, leaving four years to be served in the penitentiary along with ancillary orders.

The accused applied for judicial interim release on a bail review after previously consenting to detention on charges including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and breach of a lifetime firearms prohibition order.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties, including his mother and a former employer, with supervision and potential electronic monitoring.

The court found the Crown’s case to be strong and concluded that the proposed supervision plan contained significant gaps that created a substantial risk of reoffending.

Given the accused’s prior firearms convictions and repeated breaches of prohibition orders, detention remained necessary for public safety.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending an extradition committal hearing relating to fraud charges brought by the United States.

The court reviewed the governing framework under the Extradition Act and the modified application of the Criminal Code bail provisions, emphasizing that flight risk must be assessed with heightened caution in extradition proceedings.

The applicant proposed a substantial surety plan totaling approximately $770,000 and supervision by family members and community members.

The court found that although the secondary ground was addressed and the tertiary ground was not engaged, the primary ground remained a serious concern due to the strength of the extradition case, the potential for lengthy imprisonment in the requesting state, the applicant’s prior fraud conviction in the United States, and his use of aliases.

Given the heightened risk of non‑appearance and the limitations of proposed supervision and electronic monitoring, the court ordered continued detention pending the extradition hearing.

The applicant, having been convicted of impaired driving and driving over 80, sought a stay of his two-year driving prohibition pending his appeal.

He argued that the prohibition caused significant hardship to his businesses and personal life.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the appeal had borderline merit but the applicant failed to demonstrate real hardship, as opposed to mere inconvenience, and that the public interest weighed against granting the stay.