Nancy J. Spies

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant in a parking garage stairwell.

The complainant had consumed alcohol and prescription medication and had no memory of the assault, but awoke to find the accused having non-consensual intercourse with her.

The court found that the complainant was in a state of extreme intoxication and lacked the capacity to consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a complainant who briefly worked for him.

The complainant alleged she was sexually assaulted at a nightclub, at a condo, and later at the accused's home, claiming she was highly intoxicated and 'blacked out' during parts of the events.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, noting physical impossibilities in her descriptions, selective memory, and actions inconsistent with her stated lack of romantic interest in the accused.

Applying the W.(D.) principles to the defence evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove the sexual assaults occurred beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The Crown brought a bail review application to vacate a release order for the accused, who was charged with criminal harassment and uttering threats against a former intimate partner.

The court found a material change in circumstances because the original justice of the peace was provided with an incorrect, less serious criminal record.

Conducting a de novo hearing, the court analyzed the 'substantial likelihood' standard for detention on the secondary ground.

Despite the accused's lengthy criminal record, the court concluded the Crown did not meet its burden and ordered the accused released on strict conditions with a surety.

During a trial for multiple ATM robberies, the Crown brought an application to admit evidence of each robbery as similar fact evidence on all counts to prove identity.

The Crown argued that the perpetrators shared a specific modus operandi and wore distinctive clothing, including a bleach-stained hoodie and specific combinations of other garments.

The court applied the Handy and Arp frameworks, finding that the cumulative similarities in the manner of the robberies and the unique clothing worn by the perpetrators established a high degree of similarity.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and granted the application.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against his former partner.

The charges arose from two separate incidents: an argument over their child's shoes that the complainant recorded on her cell phone, and a subsequent incident where the accused forced his way into her apartment and sexually assaulted her.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's evidence and accepting the complainant's version of events.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, noting that the complainant's post-offence contact with the accused did not undermine her credibility when viewed in the context of domestic abuse dynamics.

The offender was convicted of possession of a prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The firearm, a loaded .45 calibre handgun, was found hidden under a bedsheet on a couch in the offender's apartment.

The offender claimed he was holding it for a friend.

The court sentenced the offender to 36 months for the firearm offence and 8 months consecutive for the breach of the prohibition order, for a total of 44 months.

After applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody and an additional 90 days for harsh conditions due to institutional lockdowns, the sentence was reduced to time served plus one day.

The defendants brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence seized from an apartment pursuant to a search warrant, alleging breaches of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found that while a police officer's warrantless entry to 'freeze' the apartment violated s. 8, the breach was committed in good faith and did not warrant exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

After reviewing the Information to Obtain (ITO) and making necessary excisions, the court concluded that the redacted ITO, amplified by a judicial summary of confidential informant information, provided sufficient reliable evidence for the issuing justice to grant the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of methamphetamine, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record, substance abuse disorder, and ADHD diagnosis, alongside his guilty plea and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a total sentence of 35.5 months, granting standard pre-sentence credit at 1.5:1 and enhanced credit at 2:1 for days spent in lockdown due to harsh conditions, leaving 4 months to serve followed by 2 years of probation.

The applicant was arrested for possession of a firearm after a loaded gun was found in an apartment she shared with her son.

At the police station, she was subjected to a Level 3 strip search, which included the removal of her underwire bra.

She brought a Charter application arguing the search violated her s. 8 rights.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the strip search, as it was conducted as a matter of routine policy rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Given the serious and systemic nature of the police misconduct in disregarding established law on strip searches, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude drug evidence found on his person during an arrest.

The police officers claimed they detained the accused because he was walking in a manner that suggested he was concealing a firearm.

The court found the officers' testimony lacked credibility and concluded the accused was targeted due to his perceived gang affiliation.

The court held that the detention, arrest, and subsequent search were unlawful, violating the accused's rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Charter.

The officers also used excessive force and lied to the accused about the reason for his detention.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, citing the officers' bad faith and deliberate disregard for the accused's Charter rights.

Multiple actions arising from a complex land development dispute involving co-ownership agreements for two farm properties in Markham.

Fram alleged Romandale breached the co-ownership agreements by entering into a conditional agreement to sell its interest to Kerbel.

Kerbel later entered into a settlement agreement with Fram to delay the closing of its purchase from Romandale for decades.

The court found that Romandale did not breach the co-ownership agreements.

Furthermore, the court held that Kerbel repudiated its agreement with Romandale by entering into the settlement agreement with Fram, which fundamentally altered the timeline for closing.

All claims by Fram and Kerbel against Romandale were dismissed, and Romandale was granted a declaration that its agreement with Kerbel was at an end.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought an order for the committal of Tony Dada Akinbobola and Harry Cole for extradition to the USA for prosecution related to a fraudulent lottery scheme targeting elderly victims.

The court dismissed the application against Akinbobola due to insufficient evidence, finding that the allegations were bald assertions lacking sufficient detail or connection to him, and that the evidence did not establish he was the actual user of alleged email accounts or phone numbers.

However, the court granted the application against Cole, finding sufficient evidence to meet the test for committal, despite arguments regarding the reliability of accomplice and confidential witness testimony.

The defendant, Tekle Tamzean Ogbamichael, was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault.

The central issue was the identification of the defendant as the perpetrator from poor-quality video evidence and recognition testimony from his probation officer.

The court found the identification evidence, including the probation officer's testimony, to be unreliable due to concerns about overstatement, confirmation bias, and the poor quality of the visual evidence.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all charges.

The defendant, Cameron McCaw, was sentenced for sexually assaulting K.B. while she was passed out from alcohol intoxication.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the age gap, and the unprotected vaginal intercourse, and mitigating factors such as the defendant's lack of criminal record, efforts at rehabilitation, and genuine remorse.

The Crown sought a four-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought one year.

The court imposed a sentence of 40 months' imprisonment, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a mandatory DNA order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

The Crown brought two applications: a Leaney application to admit lay opinion recognition evidence from the accused's probation officer, and a Similar Fact application to introduce evidence from two other complainants (N.T. and A.B.) to prove identity and propensity.

The court granted the Leaney application, finding the probation officer's long-standing familiarity with the accused put her in a better position to identify him on video, and that concerns about tainting went to weight, not admissibility.

However, the court denied the Similar Fact application for N.T. due to issue estoppel, as the accused had been acquitted of sexual assault (though convicted of assault) in that case, precluding relitigation of the sexual nature of the touching.

The application for A.B. was also denied, as its probative value was outweighed by the prejudice of forcing the accused to testify on untried charges, raising the spectre of inconsistent verdicts and compromising his right to silence in an upcoming trial.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing two individuals sitting in a vehicle.

The accused claimed he acted in defence of his mother, believing she was about to be run over by the vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding that the vehicle was parked and not moving, and that the accused stabbed the victims out of revenge for earlier physical altercations.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in lawful self-defence and found him guilty of all charges.

The defendants, including the University of Windsor and various staff, brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable causes of action.

The court struck most claims, including those related to academic disputes, human rights violations, professional misconduct, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, finding them to be matters for internal university processes or judicial review, or not properly pleaded.

However, leave was granted to amend claims for negligence related to a personal injury (knee injury sustained during an intramural volleyball game) and for breach of contract and negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation concerning an alleged scholarship guarantee.

The claims of the plaintiff's family members were limited to Family Law Act damages arising from the knee injury.

The solicitors, Murray Teitel, Newman, Weinstock, and Green and Spiegel, appealed an assessment officer's decision that reduced their legal accounts by $2,166.57 and denied costs for the assessment.

The original assessment concerned 21 accounts for services rendered over 24 years ago for North York Community Credit Union, with the client, Mary Serniak, having the right to assess them.

The assessment officer found that some time billed for negotiations was excessive and unnecessary, and that both parties contributed equally to the inordinate length and cost of the assessment, thus warranting no costs award.

The Superior Court dismissed the solicitors' appeal on both the reduction of accounts and the denial of assessment costs, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error by the assessment officer.

The court also awarded costs of the appeal to the client.

This endorsement fixes the quantum of costs following a prior decision where WCL Capital Group Inc.'s cross-motion was dismissed and Google LLC's motion to permanently stay WCL's action was granted.

WCL was ordered to pay costs to Google and Amex Bank of Canada on a partial indemnity basis.

The court assessed the cost outlines, considering factors under Rule 57.01(1), including complexity, importance, and proportionality.

It found Google's claimed hourly rates and total hours excessive, noting duplication with Amex's submissions and disproportionality to the amount in issue.

The court fixed Amex's all-inclusive costs at $18,000 and Google's all-inclusive costs at $30,000.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained by a Justice of the Peace.

The reviewing judge found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law by not properly applying the "ladder principle" from R. v. Antic and by failing to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting less onerous forms of release, effectively imposing a reverse onus on the applicant.

The judge considered the release de novo and granted bail with enhanced community supervision conditions through the Toronto Bail Program, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed primary and secondary ground concerns despite the applicant's lengthy criminal record and mental health issues.