3 total
Hospital readmission of NCR accused upheld as necessary and least restrictive measure to manage risk.
The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, was living in the community under a Detention Disposition.
Following an incident where he crossed boundaries with a female co-worker and was terminated from his employment, the hospital readmitted him, significantly restricting his liberty.
The Ontario Review Board convened to review the restriction pursuant to s. 672.81(2.1) of the Criminal Code.
Accepting the joint submission of the parties, the Board found that the initial and ongoing restriction of liberty was necessary, appropriate, and represented the least onerous and least restrictive measure to manage the accused's risk to the public.
The court struck the defendants' pleadings for discovery failures and granted summary judgment.
The plaintiff, Hoya Lens Canada Inc., brought a motion to strike the defence and counterclaim of the defendants, 2364141 Ontario Inc. o/a Vision Tech Labs Ottawa, Carl Gauthier, and 3531244 Canada Inc., and for summary judgment.
The defendants had repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, including non-attendance at examinations and inadequate document production, and engaged in delay tactics.
The court found that the defendants had demonstrated a complete disregard for the judicial system and that ordering re-attendance for discovery would be fruitless.
The court also addressed the arbitration clause in the franchise agreement, concluding that the defendants had attorned to the court's jurisdiction by undue delay in seeking a stay.
Consequently, the court struck the defence and counterclaim and granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff for unpaid fees, royalties, and product orders, totaling $235,402.63 and $17,841.29, plus interest and costs.
Leave granted to third party the owner in the lien action.
On a motion under s. 56 of the Construction Lien Act, the contractor sought leave to add the owner as a third party in a subcontractor lien action for contribution and indemnity.
The owner argued contractual dispute resolution provisions and potential overlap with a broader contract claim would cause undue prejudice and complicate the summary lien proceeding.
The court held the proposed third party claim was confined to contribution and indemnity, found no undue prejudice or undue delay, and distinguished authority where arbitration had already been triggered.
Leave was granted because the owner was a necessary party to delay-related issues and denial could prejudice both the contractor and the subcontractor, including by possible limitation consequences.
