P. Andras Schreck

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and firearms offences arising from a shootout at a restaurant, the court ruled on the admissibility of the criminal records and police occurrence reports of one of the co-accused, the deceased, and the other co-accused.

The court excluded the co-accused's criminal record, finding its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its limited probative value regarding credibility and self-defence.

The court admitted the deceased's criminal record and related occurrence reports, as they were relevant to the accused's claim of self-defence and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

The court excluded double hearsay occurrence reports and unproven police synopses relating to the accused.

The applicant law firm obtained a default judgment in Small Claims Court against the respondent for unpaid legal fees.

The respondent successfully moved to set aside the default judgment, citing mental health issues that caused him to miss settlement conferences.

The applicant sought judicial review of the order setting aside the default judgment and brought a motion for a stay to prevent the release of funds held in trust from the sale of the respondent's home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court noted that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory Small Claims Court order and judicial review cannot be used to circumvent this.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for breach of contract regarding unpaid fees for preparing a tax credit application.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, ignored fraud allegations, and erred by enforcing a 36% interest rate, which it claimed was a criminal rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The court also held that the 36% interest rate was not a criminal rate because the agreement fell under the commercial borrowing exemption in the Criminal Interest Rate Regulations.

The respondent landlord brought a motion for security for costs in the appellants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision.

The landlord sought over $34,000, primarily based on an unpaid costs award from a previous proceeding and a disputed claim for unpaid rent.

The court found that while the unpaid costs award met the threshold for ordering security, the primary purpose of the motion was to recover disputed rent rather than to protect against future costs.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to order security for costs, finding it was not in the interests of justice.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A 17-year-old defendant was charged with second-degree murder in the death of an 18-year-old who was fatally stabbed during a group altercation outside a nightclub.

The Crown conceded that the evidence did not support a murder charge and sought a conviction for manslaughter.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the defendant participated in escalating the initial conflict and used weapons when others did not, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court considered the group dynamic, the speed of events, and the defendant's age in applying a modified objective standard of reasonableness.

The defendant was acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.

Crown application for a "High Risk Accused" designation under s. 672.64(1) of the Criminal Code for an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (schizophrenia) for serious violent offences including robbery, attempted break and enter, and two counts of aggravated assault.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the offences were serious and brutal in nature, the Crown failed to establish a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence endangering another's life or safety.

The accused has responded well to treatment, is currently symptom-free, and demonstrates insight into his condition, though uncertainty remains regarding his adherence to treatment if released into the community without supervision.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching of his daughter.

The complainant testified that the accused engaged in repeated sexual contact with her between 2018 and 2023, beginning when she was nine years old.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on all counts after assessing the credibility of both witnesses.

The judge rejected the accused's evidence as deliberately misleading regarding his work schedule and the timing of an apology message.

The judge accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, finding her account plausible and consistent on salient matters.

The applicant sought an exemption from a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order made by the Ontario Court of Justice on October 19, 2023, pursuant to section 490.04 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application on jurisdictional grounds, finding that since the original SOIRA order was made by the Ontario Court of Justice, the application for exemption must be brought in that court, not the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant, Laurel Paige, appealed convictions for sexual interference, sexual assault, and committing an indecent act, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant, a child witness.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge’s reasons, finding that while there was a palpable error in treating the complainant’s admission of prior false allegations as bolstering her credibility, the error was not overriding and did not affect the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court emphasizing the deference owed to trial judges on credibility findings and clarifying the proper approach to issues of corroboration, inconsistencies, and motive to fabricate.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Ammaan Charley, who was convicted of multiple serious offences, including firearms, drug trafficking, robbery, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzes aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic racism, the harshness of pre-sentence custody, and the application of the totality principle.

The final sentence imposed is 16 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and includes ancillary orders such as a firearms prohibition and DNA order.

The court sentenced S.F. for mischief to computer data and failing to comply with a recognizance, both relating to his former partner R.J. The court found S.F. changed R.J.'s passwords to control her and maintained contact with her in breach of a court order.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with probation for the mischief to data offence and an absolute discharge for the breach, citing S.F.'s lack of criminal record, addiction recovery, and the limited harm caused.

The decision reviews sentencing ranges and factors for mischief to data, and the appropriateness of a discharge in domestic contexts.

Ephraim Woldehawariat was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved he intended to exercise control over the substance, specifically addressing the 'hot potato' defence.

The court found that the accused had the fentanyl in his hand for at least 20 seconds before attempting to hide it from police, leading to the reasonable inference that he formed the intention to control it.

The court rejected the 'hot potato' defence and found the accused guilty.

Duy Tam Nguyen was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearm possession offences after police found significant amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine, and two firearms in a "stash house" he operated.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record and the sophistication of the operation, and mitigating factors such as rehabilitative prospects and pre-sentence custody conditions.

The judge applied the principle of totality to determine appropriate concurrent and consecutive sentences for the various counts, ultimately imposing a total sentence of seven years and eight months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders for DNA sample and a lifetime firearm prohibition.

Baldeep Singh Aujla appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider the complainant's motive to fabricate, mischaracterizing surveillance video as 'corroborative,' and reversing the burden of proof regarding the complainant's testimony details.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately considered the motive to fabricate, used 'corroborative' in an informal sense, and did not reverse the burden of proof, as the conviction was primarily based on video evidence confirming the complainant's account.

The accused, S.F., was tried on multiple criminal charges including sexual assault, threatening bodily harm, assault, mischief to computer data, voyeurism, distributing an intimate image, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The court found the complainant's evidence to have reliability issues.

S.F. was acquitted on the sexual assault counts, as the Crown failed to prove a lack of subjective consent or vitiated consent under the "position of power" provision (s. 273.1(2)(c) of the Criminal Code), which the court interpreted narrowly.

Acquittals also occurred for threatening bodily harm, assault, most mischief counts, voyeurism (due to lack of surreptitiousness), and distributing an intimate image (due to hearsay).

S.F. was found guilty on one count of mischief to computer data and one count of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and two counts of possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The firearm, an overcapacity magazine, and ammunition were found in his bedroom.

The court considered the aggravating factors of his prior record, the defaced serial number, the overcapacity magazine, and the breach of two prohibition orders.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, supportive family, strict bail conditions, and harsh presentence custody conditions (frequent lockdowns and triple-bunking).

The court imposed a total sentence of 39 months, which was reduced to 28 months after applying credits for presentence custody, harsh conditions, and time spent on strict bail.

Joaquim Batista, a surety, sought to set aside a $5000 bail recognizance forfeiture order made in his absence due to a miscommunication with the Crown.

The Crown argued the court was functus officio and there was no right of appeal.

The court held that the functus officio doctrine must be applied flexibly where no right of appeal exists, especially when a party was denied the opportunity to be heard.

The forfeiture order was set aside, and the Crown was permitted to renew its application.

The offender was convicted of human trafficking, aggravated assault, procuring, and related offences after forcing a sex trade worker to meet a daily quota and severely assaulting her when she complained.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the offender challenged the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum under s. 279.01(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and sought a conditional sentence.

The court found it unnecessary to decide the constitutional issue, as the appropriate sentence was five and a half years imprisonment, considering the gravity of the offences, the offender's lack of a related record, and the impact of incarceration on his children.

The court also ordered a $15,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture and $15,000 in restitution.