Michael Varpio

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle under section 249(1) of the Criminal Code and carrying a concealed weapon under section 90(1) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on events at a bush party on July 22, 2011, where bear spray canisters were discharged at partygoers.

The court found the accused guilty of carrying a concealed weapon.

The decision addresses the elements of the offence: the nature of bear spray as a prohibited weapon, the meaning of "carrying" in the context of a vehicle, and the requirement that the weapon be concealed with the requisite mens rea.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and carrying a concealed weapon.

The Crown alleged that the accused pursued another vehicle at high speed on Second Line, made contact with it multiple times, and sprayed bear mace at the driver.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding the relative positions of the vehicles and the sequence of events.

The testimony of two teenage witnesses corroborated the accused's version that the complainant's vehicle was behind the accused's vehicle.

The court acquitted the accused on the dangerous driving charge due to reasonable doubt.

The court adjourned the concealed weapon charge for further consideration.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a child who lived with him in a family setting.

The offences occurred repeatedly over several years and included acts of oral sex, masturbation, and two incidents of anal penetration while the offender stood in a position akin to a parent.

The court considered aggravating factors including the prolonged abuse, threats, the offender’s position of trust, and the lasting impact on the victim.

A Gladue report detailing the offender’s Indigenous background, substance abuse history, poverty, and systemic disadvantages was considered.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child sexual abuse, the court imposed concurrent penitentiary sentences totaling five years.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court considered historical allegations that the accused, while acting as the complainant's mother's boyfriend, engaged the complainant in repeated sexual acts during childhood in a violent and unstable home.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence, accepted the complainant's testimony as credible and reliable, and found corroborative support in surrounding evidence about the household dynamics, opportunity, and the complainant's delayed disclosure.

Defence theories of fabrication based on compensation, a prior altercation, drug-related conflict, and relationship difficulties were rejected as speculative or inconsistent with common sense.

Convictions were entered for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

The appellants obtained loans from the respondent financial institutions to purchase mutual funds based on the advice of their financial advisors.

When the investments failed to perform, the appellants faced margin calls and suffered losses.

They sued the financial institutions, alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty for failing to advise them of the risks associated with the loans.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the financial institutions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the relationship between a bank and its customer is generally that of debtor and creditor, and there were no special circumstances or exceptional relationships to give rise to a duty of care or a fiduciary duty to advise the borrowers.