3 total
Accused found NCR for violent assaults ordered detained in hospital with limited privileges.
The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing for the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.
The index offences involved violent, unprovoked attacks on hospital staff while the accused was experiencing psychosis.
The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his limited insight into his schizophrenia, history of non-compliance, and cannabis use disorder.
The Board ordered a detention order with privileges up to and including indirectly supervised community passes, concluding it was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.
Summary judgment granted for breach of trust after defendants' statement of defence struck for non-compliance.
The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence for failing to comply with previous court orders, and sought judgment for breach of trust under the Construction Act.
The Associate Judge struck the defence and noted the defendants in default.
Although the Associate Judge found he lacked jurisdiction to grant default judgment for an unliquidated breach of trust claim, he determined it was appropriate to grant summary judgment.
The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the corporate defendant's breach of trust and the principal's personal liability.
The request for a declaration under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Individual defendants found personally liable for corporate contractor's breach of trust under the Construction Act.
The plaintiff supplier brought an action against the corporate defendant and its principals for unpaid materials supplied to a construction project.
Following default judgment against the corporation, an uncontested trial was held to determine the personal liability of the individual defendants.
The court found that the corporation received funds for the project but failed to pay the plaintiff, constituting a breach of trust under the Construction Act.
The court held the individual defendants jointly and severally liable for the breach of trust, finding they had effective control of the corporation and acquiesced in the breach.
