Pelletier

The accused pleaded guilty to theft of electricity under $5,000, admitting to stealing $4,999 worth of hydro by occasionally disconnecting the meter at his business.

The Crown sought to prove the theft exceeded $5,000 by relying on circumstantial evidence of average historical use compared to actual billings.

The court found that the variables involved in calculating the exact amount stolen were too numerous to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted the guilty plea for theft under $5,000.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual exploitation, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on inadmissible evidence.

At trial, the Crown introduced evidence of the appellant's sexual relationship with the complainant after the complainant turned 18, which the trial judge ruled inadmissible under section 276 of the Criminal Code.

However, the trial judge subsequently relied on this post-majority relationship to reject the appellant's exculpatory police statement.

The Superior Court of Justice found this to be a reversible error, as the appellant was assured the evidence was inadmissible and had no opportunity to address it.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiff, a shareholder in a residential development company, brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation against 6 lots in a development project.

The plaintiff claimed an oral agreement entitled it to 25% of the lots in the project, and sought specific performance.

The court found that the plaintiff's partial performance of the oral agreement was sufficient to overcome the requirement for a written contract under the Statute of Frauds.

Applying the criteria for granting a certificate of pending litigation, the court concluded that the plaintiff had a viable claim, damages would be difficult to quantify, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the certificate to protect the plaintiff's interest in the specific lots.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm following a single-vehicle accident.

The investigating officer obtained a production order for the applicant's hospital medical records, including blood alcohol analysis, based on a sworn information.

The applicant brought a Charter motion arguing the search violated his s. 8 rights because the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found the information contained significant omissions and relied on the officer's unsupported assumptions rather than objective facts.

The court concluded the search violated s. 8 and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the high expectation of privacy in medical records.

Following the ruling, the Crown stayed the proceedings.

The defendant brought a motion to strike out the plaintiff's jury notice, arguing it was served after the close of pleadings.

The plaintiff had amended her statement of claim multiple times, adding claims for defamation, breach of contract, and bad faith, and significantly increasing the damages sought.

The court found that the substantial amendments fundamentally altered the nature of the claim, meaning the pleadings were not closed when the jury notice was served.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of a 12-month driving prohibition pending the appeal of her conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The court previously found that the prohibition caused hardship.

However, after reviewing the trial record, the court concluded that the appeal lacked merit, as the trial judge's findings regarding impairment were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for equal shared parenting and an order that the child's residence remain in Ottawa.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion seeking sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to Cornwall to live with her fiancé.

The court applied the framework from Gordon v. Goertz and determined that it was in the child's best interests to remain in Ottawa on an interim basis, noting the child's established routine, extended family, and the lack of detailed evidence regarding the proposed move.

The court ordered that the child's primary residence remain in Ottawa, maintained the existing parenting schedule, and ordered the father to pay interim child support.