Rick Leroy

The offender was convicted of human smuggling under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for his role as a courier transporting undocumented individuals from the US border to Toronto.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a 15-month conditional sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the organized nature of the scheme and the exploitation of his brother against mitigating factors including a positive pre-sentence report, financial desperation, and lack of related criminal record.

The court concluded that a 15-month conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation, would adequately address denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, charged with attempted murder, brought a motion to exclude a statement made to police.

Due to a technical error, the audio of the video-recorded interview was mostly unrecorded, and the interviewing officer's notes were sparse.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the recording failure did not breach the accused's Charter rights.

However, the court excluded the audio component because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, while allowing the silent video and the officer's testimony regarding the gist of the interview.

The accused was charged with offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for his role in transporting individuals who had been smuggled across the US-Canada border into Cornwall.

The accused claimed he was merely doing a favour for his brother and was unaware of the illegal nature of the enterprise.

The court found that the accused's brother had informed him of the passengers' documentary deficiencies, raising a real suspicion that the accused deliberately chose to ignore.

Applying the doctrine of wilful blindness, the court concluded the accused possessed the requisite mens rea and entered convictions.

In a family costs endorsement following an uncontested trial, the applicant sought recovery for both the issuance of the application and later trial-related attendances.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and emphasized proportionality, fairness, litigant conduct, and the modern purposes of costs awards.

The claim for costs of bringing the application was dismissed because the respondent's probation terms restricting communication affected the usual expectation of out-of-court engagement.

However, the court awarded partial indemnity costs for the fresh affidavit of uncontested trial and the later attendances after finding the respondent unreasonably failed to comply with an earlier order and caused unnecessary expense.

This costs endorsement followed a refusals motion in which success was divided across eight contested refusals.

The court adopted a per-refusal approach drawn from prior case management directions, using $1,500 per contested refusal as an efficient basis for assessing costs risk and outcome.

Because the responding party succeeded on five refusals, the moving party succeeded on one, and success was split on two, the court fixed costs in favour of the responding party.

Costs were awarded at $6,000 in fees plus HST and $1,525 in disbursements.

On a discovery motion in a personal injury action arising from a trip and fall, the defendant sought extensive electronic, social media, gambling, border, banking, and financing records to test the plaintiff's alleged disability and credibility.

The court held that private Facebook content, device hard drives, electronic documents, internet history, and metadata were not producible on the record because the requests were speculative, insufficiently probative, and engaged substantial privacy interests.

The court nevertheless ordered production of casino card records, United States border entry records, and the plaintiff's portion of a vehicle loan application and purchase agreement, finding those records relevant in the discovery context and proportionate.

Joint bank records and the spouse's border records were refused, and the plaintiff was ordered to re-attend discovery on the produced documentation.

Sentencing decision involving an Aboriginal offender who pleaded guilty to participating as the final courier in a human smuggling operation involving a family of five, together with related Customs Act and Criminal Code offences arising from a dangerous flight from police.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as central given the offender's callous treatment of vulnerable migrants, the profit motive, and the risk created to adults and children, but also gave substantial weight to rehabilitation, recovery from OxyContin addiction, Gladue principles, and the availability of strict community supervision.

Applying the Gladue and Proulx frameworks, the court held that a sentence of less than two years was fit, community safety would not be endangered, and a conditional sentence could satisfy punitive and restorative objectives.

A consecutive sentence totalling 24 months less one day was imposed to be served in the community, followed by two years' probation and ancillary orders.

The accused was tried on multiple domestic assault, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement counts arising from a volatile relationship involving a complainant with intellectual limitations.

The court held that the complainant's evidence was undermined by internal inconsistency, admitted consent on the sexual assault counts, substance use, and the influence of a third-party witness whose reliability the court rejected.

Applying the W. (D.) framework to this he-said/she-said record, the court found the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

In a child protection summary judgment motion, the Society sought Crown wardship without access for two special-needs children who had been in care well beyond the statutory time limits.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the mother conceded the children remained in need of protection, the history of chronic neglect and parental incapacity was longstanding, and the evidentiary record established no realistic prospect of reintegration.

The court further held that access could not be ordered under the governing statute because it would impair the children's future adoption opportunities.

Crown wardship without access was granted.

On a Charter application in a robbery prosecution, the accused sought exclusion of a stolen wallet found in his possession and inculpatory custodial statements.

The court held that the initial arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking was unsupported by reasonable and probable grounds, and that the ensuing overnight detention and failure to bring the accused before a justice within 24 hours constituted arbitrary detention.

The subsequent cellblock tote search was not authorized as a search incident to arrest or detention and breached s. 8, although the accused retained standing to assert a privacy interest in property stored in the cellblock.

While the later robbery statement was voluntary on a stand-alone confessions analysis, the cumulative Charter breaches, including the arbitrary arrest and detention and deficiencies in fresh s. 7 and s. 10 advice during the robbery interview, required exclusion of both the wallet and the statement under s. 24(2).

The accused day care provider was tried on sexual abuse allegations made by a very young complainant.

The court conducted a detailed credibility and reliability assessment of the child’s evolving disclosures, the video-recorded police interview, and the surrounding family context.

Applying the burden of proof, the W.(D.) framework, and the reasonable doubt instruction, the court found the child’s evidence materially inconsistent and the interview process unduly leading.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss or quash a third party appeal from interlocutory orders of a Master concerning timelines and procedures for a protection motion relating to alleged trade secret documents.

The third party sought to set aside the Master’s orders and refer its protection motion to a judge.

The court held that the Master acted within jurisdiction, that the orders were procedural and interlocutory, and that the appeal was brought in the wrong forum and outside prescribed timelines.

Applying principles of court openness and the test for confidentiality orders from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada, the court found no evidentiary basis for the requested protection.

The plaintiff’s motion was granted, the third party’s motion dismissed, and an interim without prejudice confidentiality order was issued to facilitate continued production pending determination of the protection motion.

The appellant appealed a conviction for theft under $5,000 arising from the alleged failure to deposit restaurant proceeds at a bank night deposit.

The trial judge relied heavily on testimony from witnesses who had viewed surveillance video that was later destroyed and reported that the accused did not appear at the deposit chute.

On appeal, the court held that although secondary evidence of the lost recording could be admissible, the trial judge misapprehended central aspects of the evidence, including the surveillance camera’s limited capture intervals and the assumptions underlying the Crown’s theory.

The court further found concerns regarding the probative value and prejudice of the secondary evidence and issues related to the burden of proof under the W.(D.) framework.

The cumulative effect of these errors rendered the trial unfair.

The appellants purchased a home from the respondents in 2004 and subsequently discovered numerous defects, including issues with the heating system, balcony, and flooring.

They commenced Small Claims Court actions against the vendors, the real estate agent, and the home inspector.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the claims on summary judgment, finding they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's factual conclusions regarding when the appellants ought to have discovered the defects.

The plaintiff commenced a civil action alleging trespass, conversion, negligent investigation, and Charter breaches after OSPCA agents removed his livestock and laid charges under the OSPCA Act.

The defendants brought a refusals motion seeking to compel answers to discovery questions regarding the plaintiff’s knowledge and beliefs about the legality of OSPCA powers and investigative practices.

The court held that questions seeking the plaintiff’s personal legal opinions on contested legal issues were irrelevant where counsel had already articulated the legal positions.

The defendants’ motion was dismissed.

On the plaintiff’s cross‑motion, the court granted leave to amend pleadings and ordered production of certain OSPCA training materials, policies, tariff information, and other information relevant to alleged warrantless entries and potential Charter remedies, while dismissing requests deemed irrelevant.

The applicant brought an application for habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging a decision by the warden to reclassify him from medium to maximum security within the federal penitentiary system.

He argued that Correctional Service Canada failed to provide adequate disclosure of the case against him, thereby breaching procedural fairness under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The court held that in the penitentiary context the duty of disclosure requires only that the inmate receive the gist of the case, not full particulars or disclosure of informer identities or investigative details.

The applicant had been informed of the essential allegations, including concerns about rehabilitation progress and communications intercepts linking him to contraband activity.

The court concluded that the disclosure met procedural fairness requirements and that the warden’s decision was reasonable.

The moving parties sought summary judgment dismissing a negligence, intentional tort, and Charter damages claim arising from the plaintiff’s involuntary detention for psychiatric assessment under the Mental Health Act.

The plaintiff alleged improper issuance and confirmation of a Form 1 and improper medical treatment during a brief detention at hospital.

The court held that medical malpractice claims require expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The plaintiff filed no expert evidence and relied solely on allegations in the statement of claim, while the defendants filed expert reports confirming that the physicians’ conduct met the standard of care.

As no genuine issue requiring a trial was raised, summary judgment was granted dismissing the claims against the physicians and the hospital.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of a written contract to purchase a yacht.

The defendant argued that he and the deceased plaintiff had verbally agreed to waive performance of the written contract and instead entered into a month-to-month rental agreement.

The court applied section 13 of the Evidence Act, requiring corroboration of the defendant's evidence against the deceased's estate.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence corroborating the defendant's version of events, concluding that the parties had mutually waived performance of the written contract.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed.

The accused was convicted after trial of indecent assault of a female and gross indecency for sexually abusing a child over a four‑year period while acting in a parental role.

The court considered aggravating factors including breach of parental trust, the complainant’s young age, and the persistent and degrading nature of the abuse.

Mitigating considerations included the offender’s advanced age, poor health, otherwise good character, and the long passage of time without further offending.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount and that a conditional sentence would not meet the objectives of sentencing under the Criminal Code.

A custodial sentence was therefore imposed.

Application under s. 29 of the Extradition Act seeking committal of the respondent for surrender to the United States to face prosecution for conspiracy to traffic marijuana.

The court considered whether the record of the case established a prima facie case and whether the respondent was the person sought.

The evidence consisted primarily of a certified record including information from a cooperating witness involved in the trafficking organization and corroborating investigative details.

The court found the informant evidence sufficiently reliable at the committal stage and concluded there was evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could convict.

The court also found on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was the individual identified in the record.

Committal for extradition was ordered pending the Minister’s surrender decision.