Nicholas St-Pierre

The defendant, Denise Lee Downing, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the civil action initiated by the plaintiffs, Bernard Sparr and D’Vine Estates Sarl.

The plaintiffs' action sought substantial damages, alleging economic harm due to the defendant's false testimony in a prior family law proceeding.

The court found that the plaintiffs' civil action was an indirect attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in the family court, where the plaintiff Sparr had previously appealed unsuccessfully and had been declared a vexatious litigant.

The court concluded that the action constituted an abuse of process and granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

L'appelant a été reconnu coupable d'agression sexuelle.

Il a interjeté appel, alléguant que le juge de première instance avait erré dans l'évaluation de la crédibilité et de la fiabilité des témoins, et que les motifs étaient insuffisants.

La Cour d'appel a confirmé les conclusions du juge de première instance, soulignant le degré élevé de déférence accordé aux évaluations de crédibilité et ne trouvant aucune erreur significative dans le raisonnement ou la suffisance des motifs du juge.

L'appel a été rejeté.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal from a conviction for sexual assault.

The Crown opposed, arguing the applicant failed to satisfy the public interest criterion of the R. v. Oland test, citing the seriousness of the offense, the applicant's criminal record including prior breaches of release conditions, and the perceived weakness of the appeal grounds.

The court granted bail, finding the proposed appeal grounds were not frivolous and that the time already served by the applicant was relevant to public confidence.

The court balanced the enforceability of the judgment against its revisability, concluding that the latter outweighed in this instance.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his cellmate at a detention centre by forcing him to engage in oral sex on three occasions.

He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged both his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's credibility assessments were properly reasoned and entitled to substantial deference.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the four-year sentence was fit and properly reflected the principles of sentencing.

The victim surcharge imposed at trial was set aside.

The offender was convicted after trial of sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code for forcing his cellmate to perform fellatio on him without consent on three occasions while incarcerated at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre on November 5, 2015.

The Crown sought a sentence of three and a half to four years penitentiary, while the defence sought 12 to 18 months jail.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment, finding that denunciation and specific and general deterrence were paramount.

The court rejected the defence argument for enhanced credit beyond the statutory 1.5 to 1 ratio under Section 719(3.1), finding that the offender's segregation was a result of his own criminal conduct and that he had refused alternatives offered by the institution.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to enforce a settlement agreement, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs due to the bad faith conduct of the self-represented plaintiff, who had repudiated the settlement after receiving some of its benefits.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct caused unnecessary delays and costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay $10,000 in costs to the defendants and $500 to his former counsel.

The applicants, Andrew Pierre Makoundi (a minor represented by his litigation guardian Bruno Makoundi) and Bruno Makoundi, brought a motion to annul a settlement agreement reached in December 2013.

The respondents, Lycée Claudel and its employees, opposed the annulment and sought court approval (homologation) of the settlement and dismissal of the applicants' actions.

The court dismissed the applicants' motion to annul, finding no evidence of mental incapacity, no applicability of the Charter to the private institution, and that allegations of undue influence were directed at former counsel.

The court granted the respondents' request to homologate the settlement, exercising its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with certain procedural requirements (Rule 7.08 affidavits) in the interest of justice, given the applicants' conduct.

The court ordered the payment of $5,000 to the applicants' former counsel as per the settlement.

The accused, R.G.1, was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor under section 153(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, M. JCP, alleged sexual contact occurred between September 1, 2007 and March 31, 2008, when he was between 16 and 18 years old.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The trial judge found the complainant's testimony credible despite significant credibility issues, including a history of lying, substance abuse, and violent behavior.

The court accepted that sexual contact occurred in a bathtub at the accused's residence on the military base in Rockliffe, Ottawa.

The accused was found to be in a position of trust or authority over the complainant based on their relationship history, age difference, financial control, and emotional dependency.

The court convicted the accused of one count of sexual exploitation.