Peter G. Bawden

K.A. sought a review of his detention on two sets of criminal charges: criminal organization/trafficking and aggravated assault.

The court granted release on the criminal organization and trafficking charges with conditions, including electronic monitoring and a surety.

However, detention was maintained for the aggravated assault charge due to overwhelming concerns on both secondary (risk to public safety given extensive violent history and nature of the index offense) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice).

J.L. was arrested and detained for an indecent act and probation breach.

He sought a review of his continuing detention under section 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court found his continued detention was no longer justified given the pre-trial custody already served, the anticipated length of time to bring the matter to trial, and a community-based release plan arranged by amicus curiae.

Despite a criminal record including sexual assault and multiple indecent acts, and a history of non-compliance, the court emphasized that further incarceration would not provide enduring public protection where reliable community supports were available to address the root causes of his offending behavior.

J.L. was released on his own recognizance with specific conditions related to shelter, mental health support, and restrictions on proximity to children.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought release on bail.

The court considered the strength of the Crown's case, the applicant's background (including a new drug trafficking charge while in custody), the reliability of the proposed surety (the applicant's father, who was untruthful in testimony), the release plan, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant failed to satisfy the onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, concluding that detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The plaintiff, Richard Hefkey, sought summary judgment for wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal against Blanchfield Roofing Company Limited.

The court addressed whether a genuine issue requiring trial existed, the permissibility of layoffs under the verbal employment agreement, the impact of a new proposed contract on constructive dismissal, the plaintiff's position and length of service, and entitlement to bonus during the notice period.

The court found Hefkey was not wrongfully dismissed by the initial layoff but was constructively dismissed when the company required him to sign a new employment contract with substantially altered terms.

The court determined his length of service was shorter than claimed due to a four-month break and awarded damages including bonus compensation, while dismissing claims for aggravated damages and the defendant's counterclaim.

The Crown applied to admit a recanting witness's prior videotaped statement to police for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The witness, who had been arrested for the same drug trafficking offences as the accused but released without charges, refused to adopt her statement during cross-examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the statement lacked threshold reliability due to the absence of procedural safeguards, such as an oath, warning, or opportunity to consult counsel.

The court also held that the substantive reliability of the statement, though corroborated by police observations, did not meet the high standard set out in Bradshaw.

Alternatively, the court would have excluded the statement under its residual discretion.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, alleging incompetence and malfeasance.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent sought costs of $31,877.30.

The court found the respondent's claimed hourly rate and preparation time reasonable given the complexity of the facts and the gravity of the allegations.

After a minor deduction for an issue on which the applicant was successful, the court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $30,458.38 forthwith.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking vacant possession of the defendant's unit to enforce a condominium lien.

The lien arose after the defendant's tenant unsuccessfully sued the corporation, resulting in costs awards and legal fees being added to the unit's common expenses pursuant to the Condominium Act and the corporation's by-laws.

The defendant, an elderly self-represented woman, argued she was not properly served and should not be responsible for her tenant's unauthorized actions.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the corporation properly served the defendant at her address for service and strictly complied with the Condominium Act.

The court held that the legislation mandates adding such costs to the common expenses to protect other unit owners, and granted the corporation possession of the unit to sell it and recover the outstanding arrears.

The applicant commercial tenant sought a permanent injunction and relief from forfeiture after being locked out by the respondent landlord.

The landlord had terminated the lease due to the tenant's failure to remedy a persistent mould issue that was affecting an adjacent unit.

The court found that the tenant had not acted diligently or in good faith to repair the issue despite numerous opportunities.

The court dismissed the application for an injunction, finding the tenant barely established a serious issue to be tried, failed to show irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord.

The court also denied relief from forfeiture due to the tenant's poor conduct and failure to come to court with clean hands.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a BB gun) obtained following an investigative detention, search, and seizure, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found serious breaches of section 9 (arbitrary detention) due to the prolonged, unjustified handcuffing and de facto arrest, and breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) regarding the keys and wallet.

While section 10 rights were deemed not violated, the court excluded the BB gun under section 24(2) due to the serious section 9 breaches, but admitted the discovery of the keys and vehicle as it was minimally intrusive and could have been found by other lawful means.

Magdy Hamdy, represented by Leon Wickham in matrimonial proceedings, was awarded an equalization payment.

Conflicting directions from Hamdy regarding the payment led to an interpleader order, with funds paid into court.

Wickham failed to initiate proceedings to establish a proprietary interest in the funds.

Following an assessment of Wickham's accounts, which concluded with Hamdy owing nothing to Wickham, Hamdy applied for the release of the funds.

The court ordered the release of the funds and accumulated interest to Hamdy, as the justification for the interpleader order no longer existed.

The Crown applied under section 714.2 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting two civilian witnesses residing outside Canada to testify via video link.

The defence opposed, arguing that video testimony would offend the principles of fundamental justice, particularly concerning effective cross-examination, the right to confront accusers, and the solemnity of testimony.

The court granted the application, finding that video testimony would not offend fundamental justice, provided appropriate technical and environmental controls are implemented to ensure a fair process.

The court emphasized that while physical presence is not always required, the testimonial environment must maintain solemnity and control, and that the Crown bears the obligation to secure an appropriate video conferencing facility.

This case addresses the interpretation of "Builder's Risk" insurance policies versus Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies in the context of construction negligence.

A builder's negligent roof repair caused water damage to a school gymnasium floor and project delays.

The court examined whether the Builder's Risk policy, intended to cover "property in course of construction" extended to the entire project site or only the specific area under renovation.

Resolving conflicting jurisprudence, the court adopted the reasoning that Builder's Risk insurance covers only the property actively under construction, not the entire structure.

Consequently, the Builder's Risk insurer (Northbridge) was found not liable for the gym floor damage, while the CGL insurer (Intact) was found liable.

The applicant, a homeowner, sought to evict the respondent, a long-term tenant, from a shared residence and recover rent arrears.

The Landlord and Tenant Board had declined jurisdiction because the parties shared a bathroom and kitchen, making the Commercial Tenancies Act applicable instead of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The respondent failed to appear in court despite notice.

The court found the respondent in breach of an implied lease due to non-payment of rent and failure to maintain the property.

The court granted orders for lease termination, a writ of possession, and payment of rent arrears, but dismissed the request for injunctive relief without prejudice due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant sought to assess 30 accounts rendered by his former law firm in a family law matter, alleging the firm failed to prepare for trial and demanded an exorbitant additional retainer.

The court found that the applicant, a sophisticated client, had deliberately obstructed trial preparation and orchestrated the breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship to obtain an adjournment.

The court held that no special circumstances existed to justify assessing the accounts and dismissed the application.

The applicant's motion for a sealing order was partially granted to redact identifying information about his children, but otherwise dismissed as the information was already public and solicitor-client privilege was waived by the nature of the allegations.

The Saskatchewan Cricket Association (SCA) sought judicial review of an arbitration award concerning several grounds, including factual findings, solicitor-client privilege, admission of hearsay evidence, public policy considerations, and the awarding of costs.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's factual determinations reasonable, the preclusion of counsel as a witness due to solicitor-client privilege correct, the admission of evidence for its effect (not truth) not hearsay, and no relevant public policy issues.

The court also upheld the arbitrator's costs order as reasonable under the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code.

Magdy Hamdy sought to assess the accounts of his former counsel, Leon Wickham.

The Assessment Officer referred issues of parties and scope to the court.

The court ordered the assessment of all accounts rendered by Mr. Wickham, including those for family law, partition and sale, and criminal charges, rejecting Mr. Wickham's arguments for limited scope.

The court also ruled that Peter Rickards and his law firm, who supervised Mr. Wickham, were not parties to the assessment.

Mr. Wickham was ordered to provide a Solicitor's Brief and an accounting of funds.

Costs were awarded to Mr. Hamdy on a partial indemnity basis, with full indemnity for written materials, and costs were also awarded to Mr. Rickards against Mr. Wickham.

The defendant, Ghenadie Carpov, was charged with sexual assault, administering a noxious substance to cause bodily harm, and administering a stupefying thing to commit an indictable offence, involving two complainants, L.M. and L.O. The court found the defendant guilty of two counts of sexual assault but not guilty of the charges related to administering a noxious substance.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony regarding consent, finding that both complainants lacked the capacity to consent due to intoxication, which the defendant exploited.

Aviva Insurance sought a declaration that Intact Insurance was obliged to defend Deejah Braithwaite and Lynda Williams in a motor vehicle accident action.

The core issue was the applicability and validity of an Excluded Driver Endorsement (OPCF 28A) signed by Deejah and Lynda.

The court found that Lynda Williams was aware Deejah remained an excluded driver and that the EDE applied to the vehicle involved in the accident, despite it being acquired after the EDE was signed.

The court also found substantial compliance with the Insurance Act regarding the EDE and that any non-compliance did not vitiate the contract.

The application was dismissed, and Intact Insurance was not obliged to defend.

The defendant, Courtney Dennis, challenged the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and the subsequent search incident to arrest, arguing a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The police relied on information from a confidential informant, corroborated by police investigation and the defendant's criminal record.

The court found that the arresting officer had subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, satisfying the criteria for informant reliability and corroboration as established in Debot.

Consequently, the arrest was lawful, the search incident to arrest was authorized, and the seized evidence was admissible at trial.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, challenging the arbitrator's failure to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis and disputing the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's costs decision reasonable, particularly given the terms of the Canadian Sport Dispute Resolution Code and the applicant's conduct.

The court also affirmed Ontario's jurisdiction, consistent with a prior ruling.