R. Brooks

The applicant, Edgewater Park Lodge Inc., sought a permanent injunction and statutory damages against the respondents, Robert and Carol Cadman, for operating a restaurant under the name “Red Canoe Family Restaurant,” which was found to be deceptively similar to the applicant’s “Red Canoe Restaurant.” The court found that the similarity of the names caused or was likely to cause confusion and granted a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the name or any similar name, as well as ordering statutory damages and the removal of all related social media and advertising.

The accused, D.S., was charged with unlawful confinement and sexual assault.

The complainant, L.S., alleged D.S. forcibly confined her and digitally penetrated her vagina without consent.

D.S. claimed the sexual contact was consensual and denied confinement, suggesting L.S. fabricated allegations to gain an advantage in family law proceedings.

The court found L.S.'s evidence credible and corroborated by text messages, while D.S.'s testimony was deemed unbelievable and illogical.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that D.S. committed both offences without consent.

The Crown applied for an order permitting the adult complainant in a sexual assault trial to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) and with a support person.

The complainant suffered from an anxiety and panic disorder that she believed worsened after testifying at the preliminary inquiry.

The court granted the application, finding that testifying via CCTV would facilitate the complainant giving a full and candid account of the alleged acts.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a pretrial application to subpoena a psychotherapist to impeach the complainant's credibility.

At the preliminary inquiry, the complainant volunteered that she had disclosed the assault to the therapist during a joint counselling session.

The defence sought to introduce the therapist's evidence to prove no such disclosure occurred.

The court dismissed the application, ruling that the complainant's initial statement at the preliminary inquiry was inadmissible as improper oath-helping, hearsay, and irrelevant.

Consequently, there was no valid evidence upon which to impeach the complainant.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug (marijuana/cannabis) in Halton Hills on March 20, 2015.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging the police stop violated his s. 9 rights through racial profiling.

The trial judge found the accused's allegations of racial profiling to be baseless and lacking credibility.

The police officer's observations of erratic driving (vehicle swaying within lane and crossing centre line three times) provided reasonable grounds for the stop.

Following the stop, an outstanding warrant was discovered, leading to arrest.

Subsequent observations by the drug recognition expert, including dilated pupils, balance issues, and poor performance on sobriety tests, combined with the accused's admission of marijuana use that evening, established impairment.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by marijuana.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a road rage incident on the Queen Elizabeth Way in Oakville.

The accused punched the victim in the face, fracturing a cheekbone and chipping a tooth.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, asserting the victim ran at him with intent to attack.

The court found the accused's evidence inconsistent with that of independent witnesses and internally implausible.

The court determined the Crown proved all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the self-defence provisions did not apply.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with four counts of trafficking in cannabis marijuana (less than 3 kilograms) on or about February 15, 2011, March 1, 2011, and two counts on March 10, 2011, all in Halton Hills.

The Crown's case relied on undercover police operations and surveillance evidence.

The defence argued the accused was merely assisting with pizza deliveries.

The court found the accused guilty on all four counts, rejecting the defence narrative and finding the pizza delivery story was a cover for drug trafficking operations conducted in conjunction with a co-accused youth offender.