R. Mann

Annisha Sergeant appealed her conviction for assaulting her daughter, primarily on grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (alleging counsel ignored instructions to testify or gave incompetent advice) and, alternatively, that the trial court erred by convicting her of assault with a weapon when the findings only supported simple assault.

The court found that while counsel's conduct could have been better, the advice not to testify was reasonable and did not constitute ineffective assistance.

However, the court agreed there was an error in the verdict, as the trial judge's reasons only supported a finding of simple assault, not assault with a weapon, creating sufficient uncertainty.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff, a corporate entity, to post security for costs.

The plaintiff conceded it had no assets or income but argued it was impecunious and its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and could not assess the merits at an interlocutory stage.

While noting the defendants' delay in bringing the motion, the court ordered the plaintiff to post partial security for costs, balancing the need to protect defendants from unenforceable cost awards against allowing a claim to proceed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in an action arising from the purchase of a radiology clinic.

The plaintiff claimed it was impecunious and that its claim was not devoid of merit.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity and that the merits of the complex claim could not be properly assessed at the interlocutory stage.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the total amount of $80,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment for interest and costs on its construction lien claim against the defendant contractor.

The principal amount of the lien was agreed upon and paid from security in court.

The defendant argued it was not liable for interest or costs due to an oral 'pay when paid' agreement, as it had not been fully paid by the third-party general contractor.

The court found no evidence of a 'pay when paid' agreement and held the defendant breached the subcontract by failing to pay the plaintiff.

The court awarded the plaintiff pre-judgment interest and costs, and granted the defendant contribution and indemnity for those costs against the third party.

The defendants, a police officer and the Crown, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs, who were suing for negligent investigation and malicious prosecution following their acquittals on sexual assault charges.

The court first determined that leave was required under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motions after the actions were set down for trial, and granted leave.

The court then found that the defendants had a good defence on the merits, as the plaintiffs' committal to trial after a preliminary inquiry provided strong evidence of reasonable and probable grounds for the charges.

Concluding that the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario and that an order would not prevent them from proceeding to trial, the court ordered the plaintiffs to post security for costs in the amounts of $40,000 and $30,000.

A young person was charged with four counts arising from a stabbing incident in a school parking lot, including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and weapons dangerous.

The Crown relied on testimony from the complainant, a witness, and the complainant's mother.

The defendant was alleged to have aided an adult perpetrator under section 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code or to have acted pursuant to a common purpose under section 21(2).

The court found the Crown's evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Critical evidence, including the alleged weapon (a taser baton), was never recovered by police.

The court acquitted the defendant on all charges.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug following a stop at a RIDE check.

The Crown sought to prove impairment through evidence of the defendant's observations at the roadside, standard field sobriety tests, a drug recognition evaluation, and toxicology results from a urine sample.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the SFST, DRE, and urine sample demands under the Charter.

The trial judge found reasonable suspicion for the SFST demand and reasonable and probable grounds for the DRE and urine sample demands.

However, the trial judge found that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug, citing concerns about the subjectivity of the DRE examination, mixed results on physical tests, normal driving observations, and the limitations of urine testing in establishing impairment at the time of driving.

The applicant brought a Charter application under section 11(b) seeking to have domestic violence charges stayed due to delay in trial.

The applicant was charged in October 2013 with two counts of common assault, one count of threatening, and one count of assault with a weapon.

The trial was originally scheduled for February 2015 but was adjourned when the Crown served a late notice of application regarding prior discreditable conduct.

The trial was subsequently rescheduled for May and June 2015.

The court found that while there was some delay, the applicant had been content with the pace of proceedings for a substantial period, there was significant neutral time, and any prejudice was minimal.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision that resulted in the death of a pedestrian.

The Crown alleged the defendant was driving at an inappropriate speed for wet road conditions.

The defendant claimed his vehicle's brakes suddenly failed, causing the loss of control.

The trial judge found the road was wet at the time of the collision, rejected the mechanical failure defence as speculative, and found the defendant's testimony regarding road conditions and vehicle speed to be unreliable due to inconsistencies with his earlier statement to police.

The defendant was convicted of careless driving.