M. McKelvey

The plaintiff, a former radio host, brought a defamation action against the defendants over a magazine article detailing his criminal harassment of a former partner.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action.

The court found that the article related to a matter of public interest (gender-based harassment).

While the plaintiff showed the action had substantial merit and the defence of justification might not succeed, he failed to prove that the harm he suffered from the article outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression.

The court noted the plaintiff's career damage occurred prior to the article's publication due to the criminal charges themselves.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

The defendants, charged with human trafficking and related offences, brought a pre-trial application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant on her history in the sex trade.

The Crown alleged the defendants used drugs to coerce the complainant into sex work.

The court applied the two-stage s. 276 framework, ruling that evidence of the complainant's prior sex work and subsequent sex work was inadmissible as it engaged the twin myths.

However, the court permitted cross-examination regarding the complainant's initial meeting with a third party and her independent sex work during the time of the allegations, finding this evidence relevant to the issue of coercion and not barred by s. 276.

The appellant appealed her summary conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80mg.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding sufficient grounds for the roadside test, accepting the breathalyzer results despite an unreliable breath technician, and finding the delay caused by a forced consultation with duty counsel was reasonable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the first two grounds but found the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider whether the police acted reasonably in requiring the appellant to consult with duty counsel after she had waived her right to counsel.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after striking and kicking the victim in the face, causing severe injuries including a broken jaw and orbital bone.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence less pre-trial custody, while the defence sought time served.

The court considered the offender's guilty plea, pre-trial custody conditions, and house arrest as mitigating factors, but found the gravity of the offence and the offender's prior record required a custodial sentence.

The offender was sentenced to 1 year in custody less 307 days credit, plus probation, a weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and restitution of $14,296.63.

The defendant breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential home.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for the difference between the contract price and the market value at closing, plus forfeiture of the deposit.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages and that the deposit should be credited against any damages.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no failure to mitigate as the defendant provided no evidence that the loss could have been minimized.

The court also held that the deposit must be credited against the damages, awarding the plaintiff the diminished value less the deposit amount.

The applicant municipality sought an order under s. 38 of the Building Code Act for the removal or demolition of buildings placed on the respondent's property without a permit.

The property was subject to a holding provision in the zoning by-law, which restricted use to existing uses until a site plan agreement was entered into, requiring the construction of a road to municipal standards.

The court found the respondent violated the zoning by-law and the Building Code Act, and granted the order for removal or demolition, along with an injunction against occupying the buildings.

The applicant, charged with cocaine trafficking offences, brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash search warrants for two residences and exclude the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found sufficient grounds for the warrant at the applicant's current residence, but insufficient grounds for his former residence due to stale information, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the s. 8 breach was at the less serious end of the spectrum and the reliable evidence was crucial to the prosecution of serious offences, thus admitting the evidence and dismissing the application.

The plaintiff brought an action for payment on a promissory note, damages for fraud, and to set aside a transfer of a matrimonial home as a fraudulent conveyance, following the defendant's criminal conviction for fraud related to the same loan.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the assessment of damages, the credibility of the defendant's explanation for the property transfer, and whether the limitation periods had expired or were extended by restitution payments and the ongoing criminal proceedings.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff recovered only $2,000 after the application of the statutory deductible and a successful defence threshold motion.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $230,000, while the defendants argued they were the successful party and sought $25,000 in costs.

The court found that the plaintiff achieved some success and was entitled to costs, noting the defendants' failure to make any settlement offers and their conduct which unnecessarily lengthened the trial.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The offender, a former teacher, was convicted of sexual exploitation of a former student.

The sexual relationship began when the victim was 16 and lasted for two years, resulting in a pregnancy and abortion.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence based on the breach of trust, while the defence sought 15 to 18 months.

The court weighed the severe impact on the victim against the offender's lack of criminal record, low risk of recidivism, and expressions of remorse.

The court sentenced the offender to 30 months' incarceration, less credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and a 20-year SOIRA registration.

The accused, charged with importing heroin, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging breaches of his s. 7 rights while in pre-trial custody.

The court found that the correctional facility failed to provide adequate medical care for a severe foot fracture, resulting in permanent injury, and unlawfully placed the accused in administrative segregation for 79 days without proper justification or review.

Concluding that the state's conduct was egregious and offensive to societal notions of fair play and decency, the court held that this was one of the clearest of cases where a stay of proceedings was warranted to protect the integrity of the justice system.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $62,500 in general damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and surveillance footage, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and evidence of her ability to perform daily activities.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her injuries substantially interfered with her usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The transaction failed to close because the registered owner's parents claimed they were the true beneficial owners of the property under a resulting trust.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant credibility issues and conflicting evidence regarding the beneficial ownership of the property created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury after shooting his friend and drug trafficking partner multiple times with an illegal handgun.

The Crown sought 16 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The jury recommendations ranged from 20 to 25 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the extreme violence, use of an illegal handgun, and post-offence conduct, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, Aboriginal heritage, expressions of remorse, and pre-trial custody conditions.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years, along with ancillary weapons, DNA, and non-communication orders.

During a jury trial for a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude portions of the defence orthopedic expert's proposed testimony.

The plaintiff objected to the expert testifying about symptom exaggeration and the theory of chronic pain syndrome (central sensitization).

Applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court allowed the expert to testify regarding symptom exaggeration, finding it within his clinical expertise.

However, the court excluded his opinions on central sensitization, ruling he lacked the necessary qualifications and his evidence failed the gatekeeper cost-benefit analysis.

The expert was also restricted from testifying about undisclosed research and cautioned to present his evidence professionally.

During a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants sought to introduce surveillance videos of the plaintiff from 2013 and 2015 as substantive evidence.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the videos lacked probative value because she had already testified she could perform the recorded activities on a 'good day,' and that their admission would be prejudicial.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the videos relevant to assessing the degree of her impairment and concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The 2013 and 2015 surveillance videos were ruled admissible.

The appellant appealed her summary conviction for impaired driving and driving over 80.

At trial, the Crown relied on a toxicologist's report that assumed the appellant had not engaged in bolus drinking within 15 minutes prior to the incident.

The trial judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence to disprove bolus drinking and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and reversed the burden of proof.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual inferences regarding the absence of bolus drinking.

The accused, charged in a shooting death, sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence regarding the 'fight or flight' reaction to explain his perception and memory of the events.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence did not meet the necessity test for expert evidence.

The court held that the biological mechanics of a fight or flight response and its effects on perception are within the ordinary experience and common sense of a jury.

Furthermore, the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the risk of usurping the jury's role and oath-helping.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 44.5 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by exceptional circumstances—including unexpectedly lengthy pre-trial motions and an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada by Crime Stoppers regarding informer privilege—the net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to grant a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80mg.

The trial judge had calculated the net delay at 13.5 months, which fell below the presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in calculating the delay, which should have been approximately 11.5 months.

Furthermore, the defence failed to demonstrate that it took meaningful, sustained steps to expedite the proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than reasonably required.

The appeal was allowed, the stay was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.