P. Machado

David Ardrey, a police constable, pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining computer service (CPIC/NICHE) by conducting unauthorized queries of a victim's information, contrary to s. 342.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating factors, including abuse of trust and significant victim impact, and mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, no prior record, and significant collateral consequences.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and community service, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, including no-contact and non-attendance conditions, but declined to impose community service, finding that a conviction was sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

Following a civil trial in which the plaintiff obtained a modest damages award but failed on most claims, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The plaintiff sought costs in excess of $8,700, but the submissions and bills of costs were inconsistent and difficult to interpret.

The court considered its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the principles in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Taking into account the partial success at trial, the confusing documentation, and the circumstances of the parties, the court awarded reduced costs inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

A tenant brought an action against a housing co‑operative alleging negligence arising from long‑standing maintenance deficiencies, including mould contamination, and the removal and loss of her personal property during remediation work.

The court found that the co‑operative failed to maintain the unit in a habitable condition and failed to complete remediation and restoration within a reasonable time.

The court further found that the co‑operative improperly required the tenant to remove the contents of the unit and failed to safeguard and return the property after it was removed.

Claims for general, aggravated, and punitive damages were rejected for lack of evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the loss of personal property and reimbursement of certain payments.