Phillip Mota

The moving defendants brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike claims for disclosing no cause of action.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent and social media content creator, alleged that she was defamed by two other real estate agents through social media posts.

She sued the brokers of record, branch managers, and brokerages for negligence and vicarious liability.

The court found that the negligence and vicarious liability claims were viable and disclosed reasonable prospects of success.

However, the court struck the claims for punitive damages on a theory of vicarious liability, as punitive damages cannot flow vicariously to an employer.

Leave was granted to amend the pleading to better plead aggravated and punitive damages against the individual defendants.

The accused, R.R., was sentenced for sexual assault and voyeurism.

The victim, T.L., became intoxicated and passed out, at which point R.R. sexually assaulted her, including brief anal penetration, and then took a surreptitious photograph of her naked breasts.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's vulnerability, betrayal of trust, and the objectification inherent in the voyeurism, alongside mitigating factors like the offender's lack of prior record, rehabilitative potential, and collateral consequences from public shaming.

The court imposed a global sentence of 36 months custody (30 months for sexual assault, 6 months consecutive for voyeurism), emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, and declining a conditional sentence due to the high moral culpability and significant victim impact.

R.R. was charged with sexual assault and voyeurism stemming from events where the complainant, T.L., became heavily intoxicated at R.R.'s dance studio.

T.L. testified that R.R. sexually assaulted her while she feigned sleep and later took a surreptitious photo of her breasts.

R.R. denied the allegations, offering alternative explanations for his actions and the social media messages exchanged.

The court found T.L.'s evidence credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected R.R.'s testimony as implausible and contradictory.

R.R. was found guilty of both sexual assault and voyeurism, as the court concluded T.L. did not consent and R.R. acted with the requisite intent and in circumstances where T.L. had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, E.A., on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by effectively applying a defence of automatism without proper analysis and by conceptualizing the offences as specific intent.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not rely on automatism but rather concluded that the Crown failed to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to vagueness in the complainant's evidence and the possibility that the touching was accidental while the respondent was asleep or half-asleep.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's understanding of the offences as general intent.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit (Over 80) contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter voir dire alleging multiple breaches of the accused's rights under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of the breath test evidence.

The court found that while there was a minor breach of s.10(b) regarding the timing of right to counsel advice, this breach had no impact on the Charter protected rights of the accused and did not warrant exclusion of evidence under s.24(2).

The remaining alleged Charter breaches were not proven on the balance of probabilities.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.