Morgan Ross

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against the accused, involving his young daughter.

The alleged incidents occurred in 2017, with disclosure made approximately five years later.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, citing the delay in disclosure and a potential motive to fabricate linked to family court proceedings.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, dismissing the defence's challenges.

The accused's denials were rejected due to inconsistencies with his prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, which was admitted as similar fact evidence.

The court convicted the accused on two of the four alleged incidents (sexual assault and sexual interference for the second and fourth incidents), finding the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while acquitting on the other two due to insufficient reliability or certainty regarding specific details.

The Crown applied under s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code to admit a young complainant's video-recorded statement made five years after the alleged sexual offences.

The defence argued the delay was unreasonable, especially given an earlier "golden opportunity" for disclosure.

The court granted the application, finding the statement was made within a reasonable time, considering the complainant's age, the nature of the abuse, and the chaotic circumstances of the earlier police interview.

The court emphasized a holistic, case-specific analysis for "reasonable time" and rejected the "golden opportunity" argument as determinative.

A discrete portion of the statement was redacted.

The Crown applied to admit extrinsic evidence of the respondent's prior discreditable conduct for a similar fact purpose in a sexual offence trial.

The respondent was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter.

The extrinsic evidence related to a prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, where the respondent was found masturbating near the sleeping complainant.

The court found that the probative value of the extrinsic evidence, demonstrating a situation-specific propensity for sexual activity near the complainant in her bedroom while she slept, outweighed its prejudicial effect, given the strong similarities in circumstances and temporal proximity.

The application was granted with limitations on the scope of evidence.

The Applicant, a third mortgagee, challenged approximately $200,000 in charges and fees claimed by the Respondent, the first mortgagee, following a power of sale of vacant land.

The Applicant argued the charges were illegal, unenforceable, unsubstantiated, or penalties contrary to the Interest Act.

The court, exercising its power under Rule 14.05(3)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, reviewed each disputed charge, disallowing many for lack of evidence or legal basis, including a three-month interest penalty and unjustified administrative and legal fees.

The court ordered the Respondent to pay $155,983.41 to the Applicant.

The applicants, 2235209 Ontario Inc. and Guy Salt, brought motions seeking interim orders including holding sale proceeds in trust, an injunction prohibiting dealings with Lot 5, a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on Lot 5, and a Mareva Order.

The motions were based on allegations of fraud regarding mortgage amounts, which the applicants claimed vitiated prior settlements where they had terminated their agreements of purchase and sale.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the applicants failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunctions.

The court also noted the applicants' lack of clean hands, delay, and insufficient undertakings.

Domenico Scopelliti was found guilty of manslaughter for shooting his father-in-law, Rocco Zito.

The jury found provocation, reducing the charge from first-degree murder.

The Crown sought an 11-year sentence, while the defence requested 7 years, with the accepted range being 8 to 12 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the use of a firearm and the defendant's involvement in organized crime activities, despite mitigating factors like no prior criminal record and expressed remorse.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, reduced by pre-trial custody.

The defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions regarding customer information and certain refusals during discovery.

The plaintiff cross-moved to compel the personal defendants to answer questions refused at their examinations for discovery.

The court ordered the plaintiff to disclose redacted customer names and contact information, subject to strict confidentiality protocols.

The court refused to compel the plaintiff to interview a third-party business advisor or disclose information related to employee witness statements, citing litigation privilege.

On the cross-motion, the court found questions regarding the defendants' rationale for selling the business irrelevant to the alleged sabotage and properly refused.

Most refusals on both sides were upheld.