Patrick J. Boucher

The parties entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a mixed-use property, with the contract specifying that HST was 'included in' the purchase price.

After closing, the Canada Revenue Agency reassessed the transaction, significantly increasing the HST payable.

The buyers cross-claimed for breach of contract, seeking a price adjustment for the reassessed HST amount.

The court found that the vendor had assumed the risk of HST and had a duty to adjust the price.

However, the court awarded no damages because the buyers suffered no actual loss, having received input tax credits that fully offset the reassessed HST.

The applicant mother sought divorce, primary parenting time, sole decision-making, child support, and special expenses in an uncontested trial.

The respondent father, residing in Tunisia, did not file an Answer but was permitted to cross-examine and make submissions.

The court granted the divorce, awarded primary parenting time and sole decision-making to the mother due to the father's residence in Tunisia, high conflict, and risk of retention.

The father's income was imputed at $100,000 CAD, and he was ordered to pay $1,471/month in child support and 53% of s.7 expenses.

Pre-judgment interest was denied, but post-judgment interest was allowed.

The father was also ordered to provide digital copies of family photos.

This decision addresses a special case brought under Rule 22.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to clarify the scope of the plaintiff's claim and damages following a Court of Appeal decision.

The plaintiff argued for a broad interpretation of her claim, including losses of pension, salary, benefits, and investment opportunity from 2008.

The defendants contended that the Court of Appeal's reasons, which upheld a finding that the limitation period commenced in 2011 upon the CRA's deregistration of the Individual Pension Plan (IPP), narrowed the claim to only damages related to the tax consequences of the IPP's deregistration.

The court agreed with the defendants, holding that the plaintiff's prior positions taken to avoid summary judgment and succeed on appeal were binding, thereby limiting the claim to tax-related losses from 2011 onwards and excluding earlier alleged damages.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter in his vehicle after driving the complainant and her friends home from a nightclub.

The complainant testified she was heavily intoxicated, experienced blackouts, and awoke during sexual acts to which she did not consent.

The court found the complainant lacked the capacity to consent due to her level of intoxication.

The court further rejected the accused's defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding he failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent after the complainant had earlier expressed reluctance.

The accused was found guilty.

The mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the children, interim spousal support, and an increase in child support.

The father brought a cross-motion to change the parenting time set out in an existing interim order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the children's desire to spend more time with the father, but maintained the mother's decision-making responsibility and primary residence due to the high conflict between the parents.

The father's parenting time was slightly increased.

The court also ordered increased child support based on the father's higher income and awarded interim spousal support to the mother.

The father brought a motion to change final orders regarding decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

He sought decision-making authority, primary residence, and a retroactive reduction in child support.

The mother opposed the changes.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a complete breakdown in communication between the parents, but determined it was in the children's best interests for the mother to retain decision-making authority and primary residence.

The court ordered the parties to use OurFamilyWizard for all communication.

The court adjusted ongoing child support based on the father's current income but declined to order a retroactive reduction for previous years due to his delay in seeking relief.

The parties were also ordered to proportionately share extraordinary extracurricular expenses.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Following established jurisprudence, the court declined to provide reasons for denying leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $25,000.

Two groups of defendants brought summary judgment motions arising from a dispute over festival food and alcohol catering and alleged municipal interference.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found the evidentiary record sufficient to resolve the matter without a trial.

It held the plaintiffs failed to establish an enforceable long-term oral contract or any viable negligence or negligent misrepresentation claim against the festival defendants, and further held there was no basis for personal liability against the individual directors.

The claims against the mayor and municipality were also dismissed as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and, in any event, unsupported by evidence of bad faith or negligence under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicant sought a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will for the estate of Stella Rose Swiddle, specifically for assets referred to in the Primary Will with codicils.

The application was referred to the judge due to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the third codicil, which occurred with the testator in Mississauga and witnesses in Sudbury, communicating by telephone and exchanging documents via courier.

The court found that this method of execution did not comply with the strict requirements of subsection 4(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act or Ontario Regulation 129/20, which permitted virtual witnessing via audio-visual communication technology and counterpart signatures, but not the method used.

Consequently, the court was unable to issue the requested Certificate of Appointment.

The offender, A.C., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, and assault and assault with a weapon against his son.

The court delivered reasons for sentence, applying the Kienapple principle to stay the sexual assault conviction as it arose from the same conduct as the sexual interference.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors such as the victims' young age, abuse of trust, prolonged intra-familial abuse, and devastating impact on the victims, balanced against mitigating factors including the offender's lack of prior record, guilty plea to the assault charges, and advanced age with health issues.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives for child sexual abuse.

A total sentence of 4 years imprisonment was imposed after accounting for pre-trial custody credit, along with various ancillary orders.

The applicant, charged with fraud and breach of trust, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging an unreasonable strip search following her arrest.

The court found that the police conducted the strip search without reasonable and probable grounds and in an unreasonable manner, failing to adhere to the principles established in R. v. Golden.

The search was deemed routine, degrading, lacked proper documentation, and was conducted without adequate privacy, exacerbated by a s. 10(b) Charter breach during questioning.

Given the systemic nature of the violations and the severe impact on the applicant, a stay of proceedings was granted as the only adequate remedy.

Albert Edward King was convicted of perjury after deliberately misrepresenting his history as a jailhouse informant during a first-degree murder preliminary hearing, falsely claiming he had never been an informant or testified previously.

The court considered the gravity of perjury, particularly when committed by jailhouse informants, and applied sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.

Aggravating factors included the planned nature of the perjury in a serious criminal proceeding and its impact on the preliminary hearing's truth-seeking function.

Mitigating factors included King's age, abusive upbringing, a 14-year gap in criminal convictions, and positive family support.

The Crown sought 2.5 years imprisonment, while the defence requested a suspended or intermittent sentence.

The court sentenced King to 2 years imprisonment and imposed a DNA order.

The defendant, Vashindra Thakoordeen, was found guilty of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the victim's heightened vulnerability due to intoxication, the assault being committed in concert with another person, dragging and confinement, gratuitous violence, occurrence in a secluded area, the defendant's leading role, internal digital penetration, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included no prior relevant criminal record, positive family support, positive work history, and relative youth.

The court also considered the co-accused's sentence for parity.

The defendant was sentenced to 2 years' incarceration, along with ancillary orders for DNA, communication prohibition, Sex Offenders Information Registration for 20 years, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

Sentencing decision arising from firearm and drug offences committed after the accused was assaulted by a group of men near a downtown intersection.

The court rejected asserted mitigating circumstances that the handgun had just been taken from a robber, that the conduct was materially connected to self-defence, and that the accused intended to surrender the weapon to police.

It found as an aggravating fact that the accused attempted to fire the handgun in a crowded public area while carrying cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, proceeds of crime, and prohibited ammunition, all while subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition.

Applying denunciation, deterrence, separation, rehabilitation, parity, and totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years' custody less 484 days' pretrial credit, together with ancillary forfeiture, DNA, and lifetime prohibition orders.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, applied for a Rowbotham order after being denied Legal Aid.

The Crown had previously offered to fund his defence, but the applicant refused due to objections to two proposed terms.

The applicant sought a conditional stay and an order imposing specific funding terms.

The court granted the conditional stay, finding the applicant met the Rowbotham criteria since no funding arrangement was currently in place.

However, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to impose specific funding terms absent a Charter breach.

The court also granted a limited sealing order over the settlement communications and the terms of the Crown's offer, finding they were protected by settlement privilege.

The accused, Albert Edward King, was charged with perjury for allegedly providing false statements under oath during the preliminary hearing of R. v. Chouart and Marshall.

The Crown alleged King intentionally misled the court about his history as a jail-house informant, prior testimonies, and previous confessions from inmates.

The defence argued King did not intend to mislead, citing a belief in a "gag order" and confusing questions.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that King purposely misled the preliminary hearing court regarding his prior jail-house informant activities and previous confessions, rejecting his "mistake of law" defence concerning publication bans.

The court had reasonable doubt regarding the perjury allegation concerning Crime Stoppers use.

King was found guilty of perjury.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged sexual assault by the accused and a co-accused in a parking lot, supported by the co-accused's testimony, video surveillance, and taxi drivers' accounts.

The accused denied the assault, claiming he only assisted the co-accused.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting his denial and accepting the complainant's and co-accused's evidence, corroborated by video and other circumstantial evidence.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order making the child a Crown ward without access.

The respondent mother opposed the motion with a brief affidavit containing blanket denials unsupported by specific facts.

The respondent father provided no response.

The court found the Society had discharged its burden at both the finding and disposition stages, establishing compelling evidence of the parents' inability to adequately care for the child, the mother's untreated mental health issues, and the father's complete lack of engagement.

The court made an order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access for purposes of adoption.

Appeals from convictions and sentences imposed on a corporation and individual for offences related to unauthorized access to Crown land and trespass for fishing purposes.

The appellants organized a public protest and removed trees that had been felled by the Ministry of Natural Resources to restrict access to Oswald Lake.

The court upheld the convictions, finding that the Ministry lawfully restricted access under the Public Lands Act and that the appellants were parties to the offences committed by others.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding no error in principle regarding the failure to inquire into financial ability to pay and determining the fine was not demonstrably unfit given the circumstances of organized civil disobedience.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire on Charter issues.

The Crown's evidence established grounds for the traffic stop, roadside demand, and breath demand.

The defendant's expert evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000C results, particularly concerning an ambient fail that occurred during testing and potential interfering substances in the breath room.

The court found that the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of accuracy and entered an acquittal.