Nishikawa

The accused was arrested on a Feeney warrant by the Emergency Task Force.

During the dynamic entry, an officer stomped on the accused's head, causing injury.

Police subsequently searched a backpack found in the unit, discovering cocaine and cash, which they used to obtain a search warrant for the unit.

The search yielded a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and large quantities of drugs.

The court found breaches of the accused's s. 7 rights (excessive force) and s. 8 rights (unlawful search of the backpack and unit), but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) due to the high public interest in adjudicating the serious firearm and drug charges.

At trial, the accused was acquitted of the drug charges due to reasonable doubt about his knowledge and control of the substances, but convicted of the firearm charges based on his admission of ownership.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude firearms and ammunition seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

He alleged breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the search warrants were valid and the applicant lacked standing to challenge the failure to file a Report to Justice for discarded property.

However, the court found that police used excessive force in breach of s. 7 by deploying a taser on the unarmed applicant and dragging him by his hair.

The court also found a breach of s. 10(b) because police failed to hold off on questioning the applicant before facilitating his right to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the firearms and ammunition under s. 24(2).

The respondent brought a motion to set aside portions of a final order made on an uncontested basis, alleging the applicant obtained the order by fraud.

The court found the respondent failed to establish that the applicant made false or misleading statements, and failed to satisfy the factors for setting aside a default order, noting his failure to participate in the proceedings.

The motion was dismissed, except for a minor rectification to correct a mistake in the equalization payment amount.

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, against two sex workers in 1986.

The accused fled to the United States shortly after being charged and was not returned to Canada until 2015.

At trial, the Crown successfully applied to admit similar fact evidence across the counts.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing his s. 7 rights were breached due to the loss of the original police files and evidence over the 35-year delay.

The court found a s. 7 breach regarding some lost evidence but declined to order a stay, noting the accused's own flight caused the delay.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts, staying one count of unlawful confinement under the Kienapple principle.

The accused was found lying in a backyard suffering from a gunshot wound following a gunfight in a residential neighbourhood.

A loaded prohibited firearm was found nearby.

The Crown's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused possessed and discharged the firearm.

The court found significant gaps in the evidence, including unreliable police testimony regarding the exact location of the firearm and the presence of multiple other individuals involved in the shootout.

The court concluded there were reasonable inferences other than guilt, such as the firearm being left by another participant, and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated assault following an altercation where he stabbed the complainant in the neck and back.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the complainant pulled out a firearm and shot at him.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both the accused's and the complainant's testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill or rob the complainant, and failed to disprove that the accused acted in self-defence.

The accused was acquitted of all three charges.

The accused were charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at their residence and seized cocaine, a loaded handgun, and cash.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant was deliberately misleading and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the ITO contained numerous inaccurate, exaggerated, and unsupported statements by the affiant officer, which were excised.

After excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the remaining evidence from a confidential informant was insufficiently corroborated, resulting in breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police conduct in drafting a deliberately misleading ITO.

As the Crown called no further evidence, all charges were dismissed.

The applicant father sought to set aside a domestic contract resolving child support and parenting issues, arguing the respondent mother repudiated the agreement through multiple breaches, including interfering with access and violating confidentiality provisions.

The corporate applicant, controlled by the father, also sought to enforce a mortgage on the mother's home.

The court found that while the mother breached certain access and confidentiality terms, her conduct did not amount to a repudiation or fundamental breach of the agreement as a whole.

The court also dismissed the mortgage enforcement action, finding the mother was not in default and was entitled to exercise her option under the agreement to redeem the mortgage.

The applications to set aside the agreement and enforce the mortgage were dismissed.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The defendant argued he did not understand the agreement and suffered financial hardship.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendant failed to close and the agreement was binding.

Summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $316,134.54, representing the difference in sale price, carrying costs, and interest, minus the forfeited deposit.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police arrested him and found a loaded handgun in his fanny pack.

The police acted on a stale, uncorroborated tip from a confidential informant and briefly observed the accused riding an e-bike before blocking his path and arresting him.

The court found the officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, violating the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's rights, resulting in a finding of not guilty.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased and unsupervised parenting time with the parties' young child.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim spousal and child support.

The mother alleged a history of severe domestic violence and raised concerns about a potential murder-suicide, arguing that the father's parenting time must remain supervised.

The court found that while there was some evidentiary basis for the abuse allegations, there was no evidence that the father posed a risk to the child.

The court ordered a gradual transition from third-party supervision to supervision by the paternal grandmother, and then to unsupervised parenting time of 30 hours per week.

On the cross-motion, the court found the mother was entitled to interim support and ordered the father to pay $1,739 monthly in spousal support and $855 monthly in child support based on his 2018 income of $93,035, declining to impute higher income to him or any income to the mother at this interim stage.

The applicant mother sought to relocate the children's residence to Texas.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing that the parties' separation agreement strictly prohibited relocation for seven years.

The court interpreted the separation agreement and found it permitted relocation with consent or a court order, meaning there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion but stayed the application, ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the separation agreement.

The appellant mother brought a motion for contempt against the respondent father, alleging he breached an interim access order by failing to provide her with access to their child on two weekends.

The court found that while the order was clear and the respondent had knowledge of it, the appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally breached the order, as the missed visits resulted from a severe communication breakdown between the parties and counsel, compounded by the appellant's COVID-19 self-isolation.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, make-up access time was ordered, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The respondent husband brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant wife's claims for equalization, spousal support, and a freezing of assets.

The parties separated in 2005, but the wife did not commence her application until 2018.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the equalization claim was statute-barred and the wife failed to meet the test to extend the limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act due to a lack of apparent grounds for relief, lack of good faith in the delay, and substantial prejudice to the husband.

The court also dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no compensatory basis and that the wife's financial hardship arose from regulatory penalties for securities fraud, not the marriage breakdown.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the husband.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order allowing the parties' three children to travel to Texas for her parenting time during the Christmas holidays.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing a recent consent order precluding international travel without a quarantine exemption, and the health risks and school disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order was determinative and that, in any event, the proposed travel and subsequent quarantine were not in the children's best interests.

Following a trial judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the parties made written submissions on the quantification of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court fixed prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 1.3 percent.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants engaged in egregious, scandalous, and outrageous conduct throughout the litigation, including misleading the court and breaching a court order.

The plaintiff's costs were fixed at $568,292.05.

The father brought an urgent motion to restrain the mother from relocating with their eight-year-old child from Toronto to Kemptville.

The mother brought a cross-motion to permit the relocation so the child could attend a specialized reading intervention program.

The court found that the child had significant reading challenges and that the mother's proposed educational plan constituted compelling circumstances to allow the move on an interim basis.

The father's motion was dismissed, and the mother's cross-motion was granted, permitting the relocation for the 2020-2021 school year pending a final determination at trial.

The father was awarded extended parenting time to compensate for the geographical distance.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to restore an alternating week parenting schedule after the respondent mother unilaterally withheld the children due to concerns about his alcohol consumption and behaviour.

The court found that while the mother's concerns were supported by CAS records, suspending all access was not in the children's best interests.

The court ordered a gradual return to the alternating week schedule, subject to strict conditions including the father's use of a Soberlink alcohol monitoring system.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $27 million breach of contract claim on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant relied on the plaintiff's conduct and a pre-litigation offer to settle for $70,000.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible and held that Rule 49 cost consequences do not apply to pre-litigation offers.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $180,000, applying a reduction to the defendant's claimed hours and rates for proportionality.

Following a motion to change that resulted in a shared parenting schedule, the parties sought clarification on the terms of the draft order regarding child support and arrears, and made submissions on costs.

The court ordered that child support be payable by both parties rather than set off, to preserve tax benefits, and calculated childcare arrears on an after-tax basis.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, alleging bad faith and relying on offers to settle.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable but not in bad faith, and noted the offers did not meet the strict requirements of the rules.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $37,000, payable in installments.