Nancy J. Spies

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 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.

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.

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.

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.