Charter challenge failed; trafficking convictions entered; mischief count not proved.
Following a landlord's unlawful entry into a rental unit and disclosure of photographs and information to police, the accused challenged the resulting warrant on the basis that the landlord acted as a state agent or, alternatively, that police negligently relied on unlawfully obtained evidence.
The court held the landlord acted for his own purposes, not at the direction of police, and found no police negligence, bad faith, or basis to exercise residual discretion to quash the warrant.
On the merits, the court accepted expert evidence that the variety and packaging of the drugs, together with scales and phenacetin, were consistent with possession for the purpose of trafficking.
The accused was convicted on the CDSA counts and acquitted on the mischief count because damage to the camera mounting was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The successful condominium corporation was awarded enhanced costs of $70,476.66 for enforcing its non-smoking rule.
This is a costs endorsement following a successful application by Halton Condominium Corporation No. 61 (HCC 61) to enforce its non-smoking rule against the respondents.
HCC 61 sought full indemnity costs of $87,377.16 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs of $70,900.62.
The respondents argued for no costs or a lower scale.
The court awarded HCC 61 costs on an enhanced but not full indemnity basis, totaling $70,476.66, considering HCC 61's full success, their reasonable offer to settle, the Condominium Act's provisions for cost recovery, and the respondents' unreasonable conduct.
The court terminated a grandfathering agreement and enforced a non-smoking rule against condominium owners who repeatedly allowed smoke to escape their unit.
Halton Condominium Corporation No. 61 (HCC 61) brought an application under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, 1998, to enforce its non-smoking rule against the Respondents, Nikolay Kolarovaliev and Borislava Borissova.
The Respondents, who were "grandfathered" under the rule, were accused of continuously breaching their Grandfathering Agreement by allowing smoke to emanate from their unit into common areas and adjacent units.
Despite HCC 61's attempts at mediation and remediation, the issue persisted.
The court found that the Respondents repeatedly violated the Grandfathering Agreement and that their claims of political motivation were unfounded.
The court granted the application, terminating the Grandfathering Agreement and prohibiting smoking within Unit 801, allowing it only outside the building at a distance of at least nine meters from all doorways, operable windows, and air intakes.
