M. Mark Fahmy

The appellants, purchasers of a residential property, appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment to the respondent vendor.

The action, commenced under Simplified Procedure, alleged breaches of warranties in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale concerning the pool, hot tub, and heating systems.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, concluding the appellants failed to establish liability based on warranty wording and lacked admissible evidence of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings on liability and damages, and upholding the decision that examinations conducted were inadmissible under Rule 76.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent was awarded costs on appeal.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and assault following an incident in which he allegedly groped and touched the complainant, a designated driver, without consent while she was driving him and a friend home from a bar.

The Crown alleged multiple instances of unwanted touching of the complainant's breasts and other parts of her body.

The accused testified that he was attempting to get the complainant's attention by touching her shoulder and side, and denied intentionally touching her breasts.

The court found that while the accused did touch the complainant without consent after being told not to do so, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the contact was sexual in nature.

The accused was acquitted of sexual assault but found guilty of assault.

The Crown sought to admit two statements made by Azhar Hussain to police on April 29, 2011, and September 30, 2011.

Hussain sought to exclude these statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in breach of his Charter rights.

The court found the April 29, 2011 statement involuntary and inadmissible because Hussain was not adequately informed of his jeopardy as a suspect.

However, the September 30, 2011 statement was found voluntary and admissible, as Hussain had access to counsel, understood his rights, and his will was not overborne by the interview conditions, despite his claims of fatigue and fear.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to section 259(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused drove a motor vehicle on Highway 401 in Pickering while bound by a provincial suspension.

The accused testified that he was unaware of the suspension, believing it had expired on June 19, 2013, when in fact it remained in effect until June 19, 2015.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the suspension.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application for a change of venue under s. 599 of the Criminal Code.

They argued that a fair trial in Sarnia was impossible due to the small community size, extensive pre-trial publicity regarding their alleged sexual practices, the overwhelming community response to the victim's death, the victim's father's employment at the local courthouse, and inadequate courthouse facilities.

The court granted the application, finding that the cumulative effect of these factors created a reasonable probability of prejudice and impacted the applicants' fair trial rights.