Not stated

This decision concerns the bail hearing of Ahmed Mashkor, charged with second-degree murder in the death of his four-month-old daughter, L.M. The court reviews the circumstances of L.M.'s death, the applicant's background, the proposed release plan, and the suitability of the proposed surety (the applicant's brother, Ali Mashkor).

The court finds the surety unsuitable and the release plan inadequate, particularly in light of concerns about interference with witnesses and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail is denied.

This decision concerns the bail hearing of Ahmed Mashkor, charged with second-degree murder in the death of his four-month-old daughter, L.M. The court reviews the circumstances of L.M.'s death, the applicant's background, the proposed release plan, and the suitability of the proposed surety (the applicant's brother, Ali Mashkor).

The court finds the surety unsuitable and the release plan inadequate, particularly in light of concerns about interference with witnesses and public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail is denied.

An application by the Windsor Police Service for a remand in custody of the accused, Precious Ahamarene, pursuant to section 503 of the Criminal Code was denied.

The accused was arrested on a Manitoba warrant that had been endorsed for execution in Ontario under section 523.

The court held that section 503, which applies to arrests made without a warrant, was inapplicable because the arrest was made pursuant to an executed warrant.

Instead, section 528 of the Criminal Code applied, requiring the accused to be taken before a justice in the jurisdiction where the warrant was issued (Manitoba).

An application by the Windsor Police Service for a remand in custody of the accused, Precious Ahamarene, pursuant to section 503 of the Criminal Code was denied.

The accused was arrested on a Manitoba warrant that had been endorsed for execution in Ontario under section 523.

The court held that section 503, which applies to arrests made without a warrant, was inapplicable because the arrest was made pursuant to an executed warrant.

Instead, section 528 of the Criminal Code applied, requiring the accused to be taken before a justice in the jurisdiction where the warrant was issued (Manitoba).

PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PwC), as the court-appointed Liquidator of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) Canada, sought court approval for the sale of the Clearco Credit Facilities, a sealing order for confidential transaction documents, and approval of its activities, fees, and disbursements.

The court applied the Soundair Principles to evaluate the sale, finding that the Liquidator made sufficient efforts to obtain the best price and that the process was fair and efficacious.

The Clearco Transaction, which provided the highest value for the assets, was approved.

A sealing order was granted for the confidential appendices due to their commercial sensitivity and potential negative impact on the ongoing sales process and future recoveries, with an unusual extended duration.

The Liquidator's activities, fees, and disbursements were also approved as appropriate given the complexity of the matter.

A lawyer for the defendant brought an emergency motion to be removed as counsel of record.

Although the motion was abandoned, the court addressed the lawyer's significant failure to comply with Rules 15.04(1.2) and (1.3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which require redaction of privileged and prejudicial client information in "off-record" motions.

The court noted that the unredacted materials were improperly served on the plaintiff and filed publicly, causing irreparable damage to the client.

The court ordered the destruction of all unredacted materials and warned that future non-compliance with these rules could result in sanctions against counsel.

The applicant, who was facing ongoing criminal charges, brought a civil application seeking to stay those charges based on alleged Charter violations related to wiretap authorizations and prison lockdowns.

The court dismissed the application under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as an abuse of process on its face.

The court held that the proper forum to raise Charter breaches and seek a stay of criminal charges is within the criminal proceedings themselves, and noted that the applicant already had other civil actions pending regarding the same issues.

The plaintiff amended her statement of claim after the court previously declined to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01.

The amended claim added five pages detailing incidents that appeared vexatious on their face, raising concerns that the motions process would become a forum for abusive conduct.

On its own motion, the court directed the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff, indicating it was considering dismissing the action, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The plaintiff amended her statement of claim after the court previously declined to issue a notice under Rule 2.1.01.

The amended claim added five pages detailing incidents that appeared vexatious on their face, raising concerns that the motions process would become a forum for abusive conduct.

On its own motion, the court directed the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff, indicating it was considering dismissing the action, and stayed the proceeding pending the outcome of the written hearing.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiffs under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the dismissal of their action.

The plaintiffs failed to provide submissions within the prescribed time.

The court found that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against several defendants and was an attempt to re-litigate an existing matter in Hamilton.

The action was dismissed as an abuse of process and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The court issued a notice to the plaintiffs under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the dismissal of their action.

The plaintiffs failed to provide submissions within the prescribed time.

The court found that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against several defendants and was an attempt to re-litigate an existing matter in Hamilton.

The action was dismissed as an abuse of process and for having no reasonable prospect of success.