Peter Douglas

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 12-year-old neighbour in their apartment building hallway.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as not credible due to implausible memory gaps.

The court accepted the complainant's clear and reliable evidence, which was corroborated by surveillance video.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with the sexual assault conviction stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The purchaser of a pre-construction condominium unit sought to rescind the agreement of purchase and sale after the developer added three stories to the building.

The parties proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator found in favour of the developer and determined his jurisdiction arose from the parties' consent under the Arbitration Act, 1991, not the Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act (ONHWPA).

The purchaser brought proceedings to the Divisional Court for judicial review and appeal.

The developer moved to quash the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that because the arbitrator determined his jurisdiction was under the Arbitration Act, 1991, that Act governed the appeal routes.

Since the purchaser had waived his appeal rights in the arbitration agreement, the Divisional Court had no jurisdiction.

The court sentenced Michael Allan McIndoo for multiple offences including child luring, making and possessing child pornography, extortion, and breaches of a prohibition order.

The decision reviews the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, the applicable legal principles, and comparable case law.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9.25 years, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and child protection, and made several ancillary orders including SOIRA, DNA, forfeiture, and non-communication orders.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Volkswagen and Audi entities regarding diesel vehicles fitted with a defeat device to subvert emissions testing.

The Divisional Court had previously remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court to rehear the balance of the certification motion, apart from the questions of harm and methodology for measuring damages.

The court certified the class action, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for misrepresentation, breach of the Competition Act, breach of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and breach of certain provincial consumer protection statutes.

Claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment were struck.

The court certified several common issues but declined to certify issues requiring proof of individual reliance or disgorgement.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of a class action settlement agreement with the defendants, General Motors LLC and General Motors of Canada Limited, for $12 million to resolve claims related to alleged defects in automobile ignition switches.

They also sought approval of counsel fees of $4,397,500.

The court approved both the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the litigation risks and the absence of objections, and the counsel fees, noting they were negotiated separately and represented a reasonable contingency fee.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class action on behalf of purchasers of Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles who sold their vehicles prior to the disclosure of the emissions defeat device.

The motion judge had found no plausible methodology to calculate damages on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by requiring a tangible demonstration of the proposed methodology rather than merely assessing whether it met the low 'some basis in fact' threshold of plausibility.

The matter was remitted to a new judge to rehear the balance of the certification issues.

In this criminal trial before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, John Gubbels faced charges of assault with a weapon and sexual assault with a weapon against the complainant, M.D., within the context of a BDSM relationship.

The central issue was consent.

The court found the defendant not guilty of sexual assault with a weapon (Count 1) and two counts of assault with a knife (Counts 2 and 3) due to reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's consent and the defendant's knowledge of lack of consent, stemming from inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the nature of BDSM play.

However, the defendant was found guilty of one count of assault with a hose (Count 4), as these incidents occurred outside the BDSM context and were clearly non-consensual acts of intimidation.

Michael Coutts and Sharon Coutts, co-property managers for Primevest Realty Corporation, faced charges of possession of property obtained by crime over $5000, use, deal or act on a forged document (rent rolls), fraud over $5000, and theft of money over $5000.

The charges arose from alleged fraudulent activities during their employment.

Michael Coutts was found guilty of possession of property obtained by crime, fraud over $5000, and theft over $5000, but acquitted of using forged documents.

Sharon Coutts was found guilty of possession of property obtained by crime, based on the doctrine of wilful blindness, but acquitted of the fraud, theft, and forged document charges.

The court found Michael's testimony not credible and that he diverted rent funds for personal benefit, causing a loss of $148,730.00 to Primevest.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding of contempt for deliberately breaching a court order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the proper legal principles and that the conclusion was open to him on the evidence.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.