R. Dan Cornell

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction requiring the respondent to remove a fence and trees obstructing an access road to their waterfront property.

The respondent argued the road was not an 'access road' under the Road Access Act because alternate access existed.

The court found the limited, conditional access over a neighbour's property did not constitute alternate access.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm due to the loss of vehicular access, and a balance of convenience favouring the applicants.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for a costs order following a successful motion by the plaintiff concerning discovery questions.

The plaintiff was successful on 77 out of 78 questions related to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and refusals.

The court found the defendants' conduct unreasonable, particularly their refusal to comply with undertakings based on "subsequent developments." The defendants' argument against proportionality of costs was rejected as a bald assertion without detail.

The court found the plaintiff's bill of costs reasonable, noting that much of the work was necessitated by the defendants' non-compliance with court orders and deadlines.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Sentencing following convictions for four indecent acts and one sexual invitation offence committed by a teacher against a child under 16.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount under the Criminal Code because the offences involved abuse of a young person and a serious breach of trust, with extensive grooming behaviour and profound long-term harm to the victim and family.

Although the offender had no criminal record and significant community support, the court emphasized the enduring emotional and physical consequences of the abuse and the absence of remorse.

A custodial sentence of two years less a day concurrent on the indecent act counts and six months concurrent on the sexual invitation count was imposed, together with probation and multiple ancillary protective orders.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no valid and enforceable settlement due to a lack of clarity in the offer, insufficient authority of the individual purporting to accept on behalf of corporate plaintiffs, and improper direct communication by the defendants' counsel with a represented party, violating professional conduct rules.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving and driving 'over 80' following a single-car collision.

He argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding whether hospital staff acted as state agents when taking his blood samples, which would constitute a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

He also argued that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to obtain a search warrant for the blood samples.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual determination that the blood was taken for medical purposes was supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

Consequently, there was no Charter breach.

The court also found ample objective evidence to support the issuance of the warrant and noted the issue was not properly litigated at trial.

The accused, A.S., brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of the complainant's sexual activity at trial.

The Crown largely agreed with the admissibility of communications containing explicit sexual references but objected to specific paragraphs referencing the complainant's sexual activity with her husband.

The court found that the evidence, including the contested paragraphs, was relevant to issues such as consent, the complainant's state of mind, motive to fabricate, and credibility, and was necessary for the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court concluded that the evidence had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, and was not tendered to support the "twin myths." The application was granted in its entirety, allowing all requested evidence to be admitted without redaction.

The defendant estate brought a motion to limit the plaintiff to calling three expert witnesses at the upcoming personal injury trial, arguing there was considerable duplication among the proposed five experts.

The court reviewed the proposed experts and found that the functional ability assessment by one expert duplicated the range of motion testing in the in-home assessment by another.

The court permitted the plaintiff to call four experts (an orthopaedic surgeon, a future care costs evaluator, an in-home assessor, and a vocational evaluator) but excluded the functional ability expert.

The court also raised concerns about the admissibility of proposed psychiatric evidence regarding a defendant's mental capacity under the Mohan framework and requested written submissions before ruling on that issue.

Sentencing following jury convictions for sexual assault, sexual touching of a person under 14, and inviting a person under 14 to touch for a sexual purpose.

The offender sexually abused two vulnerable stepchildren over an extended period, including repeated abuse of one victim over approximately ten years, while occupying a position of trust and authority and having a prior similar conviction involving children.

The court treated abuse of children, breach of trust, multiple victims, vulnerability, and prior sexual offending as significant aggravating factors, and relied on appellate guidance emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in prolonged child sexual abuse cases.

A global sentence of six years' imprisonment was imposed, together with lifetime weapons prohibition and SOIRA orders, a DNA order, and a custodial no-contact order.

The defendant owner brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant insurer's cross-claim against her.

The owner's son, whose license was suspended, took her vehicle without her knowledge or consent while she was sleeping and was involved in a collision.

The court applied the test for vicarious liability under the Highway Traffic Act, finding that the owner had not relinquished possession or control of the vehicle to her son.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the claims against the owner were dismissed.

The accused, facing charges including breach of trust, fraudulent computer access, and organized crime affiliation, brought an application to compel the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to produce extensive computer records for his defence.

The CRA opposed, citing taxpayer privacy under the Income Tax Act and arguing the request was overly broad.

The Crown characterized the request as a fishing expedition.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to establish the likely relevance of the requested information to an issue at trial or witness competence, noting the vague assertions and the accused's own admissions of unauthorized access.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to produce an adverse costs insurance policy (ACP) for inspection under Rule 30.02(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs had disclosed the existence and amount of the coverage but refused to produce the policy itself.

The court dismissed the motion, distinguishing previous case law because the ACP in this case was a blanket policy held by the plaintiffs' law firm, not the plaintiffs themselves.

The court found that producing the law firm's policy raised issues of solicitor-client privilege and that the policy was not within the possession, control, or power of the plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for two counts of theft under $5,000 and his 90-day intermittent sentence.

The charges arose from missing funds at ATMs the appellant maintained.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his failure to deny the theft and his reimbursement of the missing funds.

The Superior Court of Justice found no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's credibility findings or application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court also upheld the sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision finding that the accused's Charter rights were violated due to an unlawful traffic stop and detention.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The evidence showed the police merely followed the accused to his destination without stopping him, and the accused was not detained until the police smelled alcohol and formed grounds for a roadside screening demand.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was scheduled to conclude 49 days beyond the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that various periods of delay, including counsel's unavailability and requests for adjournments, were attributable to the defence, bringing the net delay under the ceiling.

Furthermore, the court held that the unexpected unavailability of a Crown witness and the presiding judge constituted discrete exceptional events justifying further deductions.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought a Khan application to admit an audio/visual statement from a witness, Hailey Saikkonen, as substantive evidence after she testified that her memory of the incident was based on prior statements.

The defence conceded necessity due to the witness's lack of memory, leaving threshold reliability as the sole issue.

The court found both procedural and substantive reliability were established, noting the statement was given to police shortly after the incident without prompting, and the witness would be available for cross-examination.

The application was granted, allowing the statement to be used as substantive evidence by the jury.

The accused, Kaitlyn Trudeau, facing charges including aggravated assault, brought an application to introduce bad character evidence against two complainants, Vern Otosquaiob and Robert Travis Wemigwans, to support a self-defence claim.

The application sought to admit evidence of their propensity for violence.

The court granted the application in part, allowing evidence of Otosquaiob's known propensity for violence and Wemigwans' unknown propensity based on his extensive criminal record, but excluded reference to Wemigwans' pending murder charge due to its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment and two counts of breach of undertaking.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to properly apply the objective test for criminal harassment, as there was no evidence of prior misconduct to support the reasonableness of the complainant's fear.

Additionally, the trial judge erred in finding the appellant breached his undertaking by attending the hallway landing outside the complainant's apartment, as the undertaking strictly prohibited attendance at the apartment itself.

A new trial was ordered for these charges.

The court also granted leave to appeal the sentence for a separate breach of undertaking conviction, imposing a suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image without consent.

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

The court considered the sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, including the limited distribution of the images, the accused's lack of criminal record, remorse, and stringent bail conditions.

The court granted a conditional discharge with a twelve-month probation period, finding it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest, emphasizing that deterrence and denunciation can be achieved without a conviction in such circumstances.

The accused brought a pre-trial application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking to exclude drug evidence.

The police had entered a residence without a warrant after arresting the primary tenant outside, fearing the accused would destroy evidence inside.

The court dismissed the s. 8 claim regarding the search of the residence without a hearing, as the accused failed to establish a privacy interest.

The court further held that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry under s. 11(7) of the CDSA, and that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused after observing him attempting to flush drugs down a toilet.

The application was dismissed.

The accused applied to sever sexual offence counts involving one complainant from counts involving three other complainants, all alleging misconduct when the complainants were minors.

Applying the severance framework under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code and the factors identified in Last, the court held that the allegations shared a sufficient factual and legal nexus, the evidence would not be complex, and the Crown had a viable similar fact application.

Although the accused's stated intention to testify on some counts but not others weighed in favour of severance, the risks of inconsistent verdicts, duplication of proceedings, added stress on young complainants, and Jordan timeline concerns favoured a joint trial.

The application was denied.