Robert Edward Jagielski

The Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL) for the Estate of Marek Janusz Krol brought a motion to vary a prior order to permit the sale of the Cawthra property, citing financial inability to maintain the mortgage.

The Hermistons, who claim beneficial ownership of the property, opposed the motion and proposed alternative financing.

The court dismissed the ETDL's motion, finding insufficient new facts to vary the order, but ordered Joel Hermiston to pay all carrying costs of the property, allowing the ETDL to bring a new motion if costs are not met or refinancing fails.

This is a sentencing decision for two young men who pleaded guilty to willfully promoting hatred against Jewish and Black people, contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, by posting hateful and dehumanizing posters in public places.

The Crown sought imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the hate speech and its community impact, and mitigating factors, such as the offenders' youth, lack of prior record, guilty pleas, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

Ultimately, the court imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment for six months, to be served in the community with strict conditions including home confinement, followed by two years of probation with community service and mandatory counselling, rejecting a conditional discharge or suspended sentence as insufficient.

The accused was found sleeping in his running pickup truck on a residential street in Mississauga and was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The Crown led evidence from a civilian complainant and three police officers, along with expert toxicology evidence.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the accused was impaired despite the absence of an odour of alcohol, based on the totality of circumstances including the vehicle's unusual parking position, the difficulty in waking the accused, slurred speech, red eyes, and poor balance.

The breath demands were found to be lawful despite some inaccuracies in how information was communicated between officers.

The court concluded that the accused's ability to be in care or control of the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.