Michael Wilson

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a planned robbery that resulted in a gunfight and the death of a bystander.

The court found as an aggravating fact that the offender knew his accomplice would be armed and that the robbery victim would likely be armed.

Taking into account the offender's youth, guilty plea, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the court sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The plaintiff IT consulting firm moved for summary judgment against the defendant for over $6.5 million in unpaid invoices for software development projects.

The defendant argued there was no meeting of the minds on essential terms such as scope of work and compensation.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether a valid contract existed and whether the plaintiff complied with it.

Additionally, the court granted a motion by the UK-based defendants to dismiss the action against them for lack of jurisdiction, finding no contract was made with them in Ontario and the location of the plaintiff's deprivation in an unjust enrichment claim was insufficient to ground jurisdiction.

The applicants sought a judicial recount of the ballots cast in the 45th General Election for the electoral district of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore, where the initial count showed a 77-vote margin.

The court granted the application based on credible affidavit evidence of counting errors, without requiring proof of materiality.

During the recount, the court ruled on numerous disputed ballots, strictly applying the mandatory requirement for a mark in the circle while objectively assessing whether extraneous marks could identify the elector.

The court also admitted special ballots bearing initials on the reverse, finding they were likely placed by election officers.

The recount concluded with the leading candidate's margin reduced to four votes, confirming the election result.

The defendant was tried for the second-degree murder of his parents and the attempted murder of his brother.

In a bifurcated trial, the court previously found the actus reus proven.

Following a psychiatric assessment, the defence abandoned a claim of not criminally responsible.

The court found the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for all charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The nature, number, and location of the stab wounds inflicted on the parents demonstrated an intent to cause bodily harm likely to cause death, while the planned ambush of the brother demonstrated a specific intent to kill.

The self-represented accused brought a stage one O'Connor application seeking production of various records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, including policies on inmate transfers, the SAFER program, security video, and movement logs.

The accused argued these records were relevant to an anticipated Charter application alleging that his transfers and institutional restrictions impeded his ability to make full answer and defence.

The court granted the application in part, ordering the Ministry to produce relevant policies and specific movement records to the court for stage two review, while dismissing requests for broad video footage and unrelated inmate records that failed to meet the 'likely relevant' threshold.