Nancy J. Spies

The offender was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm with a defaced serial number hidden in his vehicle, and breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6.5 years, arguing the offence was at the 'true crime' end of the spectrum.

The court disagreed, finding no evidence the firearm was possessed for drug trafficking, and imposed a global sentence of 4.5 years.

The court granted enhanced pre-sentence credit for harsh lockdown conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in a sentence of time served.

The offender's vehicle was ordered forfeited as offence-related property.

The plaintiff sued the defendant over disputed online advertising charges billed to its credit card.

The defendant moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in its terms of service requiring disputes to be litigated in California.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to add the credit card company as a defendant and amend its claim.

The court dismissed the motion to add the credit card company, finding the claim premature as the plaintiff must first prove its claim against the defendant.

The court granted the defendant's motion to stay the action, holding that the forum selection clause was valid, enforceable, and not unconscionable, and that the plaintiff failed to show strong cause to avoid it.

FCA Canada Inc. applied to set aside an arbitration award that ordered it to remove and replace an aftermarket remote starter in Christine Lamontagne's vehicle.

The arbitrator found a "Current Defect" in the vehicle and ordered the remedy.

FCA argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction or exceeded his authority, and that the finding of a defect was unreasonable.

The court dismissed FCA's application, finding that FCA waived its right to object to jurisdiction by not raising it promptly as a preliminary issue, and that the arbitrator's decision on the merits was reasonable and within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The plaintiff's slip and fall action was dismissed against the remaining defendants (Marriott entities) after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) determined it had exclusive jurisdiction, barring the civil claim.

This decision concerns the costs of the action and the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The court found both counsel responsible for the unnecessary motion due to poor communication and unreasonable cost claims, particularly the defendants' inclusion of WSIAT costs which are not recoverable.

The court fixed the costs of the action for the remaining defendants at $2,500 all-inclusive and awarded no costs for the motion itself, emphasizing the waste of court resources and unrecoverable legal fees caused by counsel's failure to communicate meaningfully.

The defendant, Letrae Paul Shallow, was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 15-month jail sentence, while the defence requested a suspended sentence with three years' probation, citing exceptional circumstances and a Charter breach.

The court considered mitigating factors, including the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, rehabilitative efforts, strong family and community support, and significant personal growth since the offence.

Aggravating factors included the quantity of cocaine (21.79 grams) and the commercial nature of the trafficking.

The court found some exceptional circumstances but determined they did not warrant a sentence entirely outside the usual range for this offence.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence, less two days pre-sentence custody, followed by three years' probation with specific conditions, and a ten-year weapons prohibition order.

The Attorney General for Ontario (AGO) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, which sought $4.5 million in damages.

The plaintiff's action alleged wrongful non-disclosure, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment, and various Charter breaches against the AGO, arising from his arrest, conviction, and subsequent appeal and acquittal for firearms-related offences.

The court granted the AGO's motion, striking all claims against the AGO without leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's allegations confused legal conclusions (e.g., the unlawfulness of a search, determined on appeal) with facts that the Crown should have disclosed or known at the time of trial.

It also determined that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary elements for the asserted torts, such as malice or improper purpose, and that the Crown's role includes advancing legal theories, even if ultimately unsuccessful.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after having intercourse with his roommate's girlfriend while she was passed out on a couch.

The accused raised the defence of automatism, arguing he was in a state of extreme intoxication from consuming alcohol, marijuana, and GHB.

The court found the complainant was incapable of consenting and did not consent.

The court rejected the accused's evidence that he consumed GHB, finding he was not extremely intoxicated and therefore not in a state of automatism.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant brought a motion under section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence (a firearm) found in his vehicle, arguing that the initial warrantless seizure of the vehicle and the subsequent search warrant were unlawful.

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to seize the vehicle without a warrant under section 489(2) of the Criminal Code, as it matched the description of a vehicle involved in a recent shooting and was believed to contain trace evidence.

Alternatively, the seizure was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act due to improper license plates.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Garofoli challenge, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO), the issuing justice could still have granted the search warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle action sought an order that the insurer pay the full costs of a mediation, arguing that section 258.6(1) of the Insurance Act, which mandates the insurer to pay full costs when the plaintiff requests mediation, prevails over Rule 24.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires equal sharing of mediator costs for mandatory mediations in Toronto actions.

The court found a conflict between the two statutory provisions and held that the Insurance Act prevails by virtue of Rule 1.02, which states that the Rules do not apply if a statute provides for a different procedure.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff's costs for the motion were fixed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and various firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.

The firearm used in the shooting was later found hidden in the dashboard of the accused's vehicle.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on the accused's ownership of the vehicle, his use of the vehicle around the time of the shooting, and a fabricated report to police that the vehicle had been stolen.

The court found the accused guilty of the firearms possession charges, concluding he had constructive possession and knowledge of the firearm hidden in his vehicle.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the attempted murder charges, finding a reasonable inference that someone else may have been driving the vehicle at the time of the shooting.

W.E.G. was convicted by a jury of assault (x2), uttering a threat to cause death, and sexual assault against his common-law spouse, Ms. A. The court considered aggravating factors including the domestic nature of the offences, breach of trust, vulnerability of the complainant (a refugee), and the serious nature of the sexual assault and choking.

Mitigating factors included a dated criminal record and compliance with bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of 42 months imprisonment, allocated across the convictions, along with a mandatory weapons prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Registry registration for 20 years, and a non-communication order.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's lack of insight into his actions.

The plaintiff, Herbert Alexander, sought unidentified motorist coverage from his insurer, State Farm, following a multi-vehicle collision.

Alexander alleged he was rear-ended by an unidentified vehicle, which propelled his vehicle into the O'Sullivan vehicle.

State Farm moved for summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the involvement of an unidentified driver, citing a lack of physical evidence and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's account.

The court, exercising its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), found the plaintiff's uncorroborated evidence unconvincing and determined that expert reports did not support the claim of a rear-end impact without observable damage.

Summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against State Farm.

Mario Sejko was convicted by a jury of dangerous driving.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his excessive speed (nearly double the limit on a rainy night), his criminal record (youth convictions and a subsequent robbery conviction), and his limited acceptance of responsibility.

Mitigating factors included his youth at the time of the offence (19), his positive pre-sentence report, efforts to improve education and employment prospects, family support, and remaining at the scene to assist.

The Crown sought a $2,000 fine, two years' probation, and an 18-month driving prohibition, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected a conditional discharge due to the need for denunciation and general deterrence, and the offender's criminal record and limited remorse.

A sentence of a $2,000 fine, 18 months' probation, and a one-year driving prohibition was imposed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sought to raise the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism.

He brought an application seeking an order that s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which bars this defence for general intent offences involving violence, is of no force and effect.

The court held that it was bound by a prior Superior Court decision that had declared s. 33.1 unconstitutional pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

In the alternative, the court found that s. 33.1 violates ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is not saved by s. 1.

The application was granted, allowing the accused to advance the defence at trial.

Omerjah Burke was charged with firearms offences, possession of oxycodone and cocaine for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The charges stemmed from a search warrant execution where contraband was found in a locked bedroom of an apartment leased by Burke.

Burke claimed he had sublet the room to a friend named Kevin and had no knowledge of the items.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses and circumstantial evidence, particularly documents linking Burke to the room and inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his residence and the existence of "Kevin." The court found Burke guilty of firearms offences and simple possession of oxycodone and cocaine, but not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking or possession of proceeds of crime, due to reasonable doubt on the latter charges.

The accused was stopped by police for using a cell phone while driving.

During the stop, the officer smelled fresh marihuana and subsequently observed a bag of marihuana in plain sight.

The accused was arrested for possession of marihuana, and a search incident to arrest revealed crack cocaine.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude the cocaine under s. 24(2).

The court found minor breaches of ss. 8 and 10(b) because the officer asked a question about the bag before advising the accused of his rights.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breaches were minor, the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with the complainant.

The complainant, who was highly intoxicated, initially had no memory of the events but later claimed to remember non-consensual anal penetration.

The accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and denied any anal penetration, stating that the encounter ended when the bed tipped and the complainant hit her head.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by forensic evidence and witness testimony.

The court raised serious concerns about the reliability of the complainant's recovered memories, suggesting they may have been tainted by suggestions from a sexual assault nurse and police.

The accused was acquitted.

Following a motion where the father successfully obtained joint custody and equal parenting time, he sought costs of $74,862 on a full indemnity basis.

The mother argued for divided success and claimed the father's fees were disproportionate.

The court found the father was entirely successful, beat his offer to settle, and that the mother had acted unreasonably by attempting to engineer a status quo in her favour.

While noting the father's legal fees were somewhat excessive compared to the mother's, the court recognized his success was largely due to the extensive evidence he marshalled.

The court awarded the father costs of $60,878 on a full indemnity basis.

Following a decision in an estate litigation matter regarding the ownership of a painting, the successful respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the applicant co-estate trustees personally.

The court found that the applicants had acted unreasonably by commencing the application instead of accepting the respondent's pre-litigation offer to pay the appraised value of the painting.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $203,589 for fees and $12,493 for disbursements, and ordered the applicants to pay these costs personally rather than out of the estate.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.