Robert L. Maranger

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and, during the sentencing hearing, sought to bring a Charter application for declaratory relief and damages under s. 24(1) due to his treatment in pre-trial solitary confinement.

The court declined to hear the application, ruling that a criminal sentencing hearing is not the appropriate forum for a complex civil damages claim, which should instead be pursued in the civil courts.

Following a successful summary judgment motion setting aside a fraudulent conveyance, the plaintiffs sought costs of up to $145,509.94.

The court found the claimed amounts excessive, particularly a $69,060.20 disbursement for an expert accounting report that was not relied upon or referred to during the motion.

Applying the principle that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed costs at $31,000 all-inclusive, as suggested by the defendant.

The accused parents were charged with multiple offences relating to the severe abuse, starvation, and confinement of their 11-year-old child.

The father claimed he was not criminally responsible due to post-traumatic stress disorder, arguing he was in a dissociative state.

The court rejected this defence, finding the father guilty of aggravated assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, failing to provide the necessaries of life, and firearms offences.

The stepmother was found guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life and assault with a weapon, but was acquitted of the joint charges of aggravated assault and confinement, as the court found her failure to intervene was not proven to be for the purpose of aiding the father.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to conduct examinations for discovery of the defendant after the trial record had been filed.

The plaintiff argued that discovery was not conducted earlier due to a belief that liability would not be contested, or alternatively, due to inadvertence.

The court applied the flexible approach from BNL Entertainment Inc. v. Ricketts, finding that a brief discovery would not delay the scheduled trial or prejudice the defendant.

The motion was granted, but no costs were awarded as the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting of default and to allow the filing of a statement of defence.

The defendants had missed the extended deadline to file their defence by one day and were noted in default.

The plaintiffs refused to consent to setting aside the default unless the defendants waived a limitation period defence.

The court found that the default should be set aside, noting that both sides were responsible for the delay in moving the matter forward.

The motion was granted, with the defendants ordered to pay $1,500 in costs to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, former employers of the defendant, brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a conveyance of RRSPs made by the defendant.

The defendant, who had embezzled over $688,000 from the plaintiffs, transferred approximately $206,000 into a creditor-proof segregated mutual fund prior to the discovery of the fraud, her conviction, and subsequent bankruptcy.

The court applied the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, finding that the defendant's transfer of stolen money into a creditor-proof fund, followed by bankruptcy, constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

The court inferred intent to defraud from the circumstances, despite no direct evidence of the defendant's awareness that the fraud was about to be discovered at the time of transfer.

The motion was granted, ordering the RRSPs to be transferred back to a general fund for execution by the plaintiffs.

The accused was found guilty of 10 counts related to discharging a firearm at a crowded shopping mall on Boxing Day, striking the victim in the foot.

The Crown sought a 10-year global sentence, while the defence sought 7 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the extreme recklessness of the act, but acknowledged the lack of serious injury and the accused's relatively young age.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, consisting of 7 years for the shooting and 1 year consecutive for possessing a firearm while prohibited, less 2.5 years credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown applied for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to review a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the accused on a sexual assault count.

The preliminary inquiry judge had found insufficient evidence to establish that the offence, which involved anal intercourse, was initiated in Ontario and completed in Quebec, thereby denying Ontario jurisdiction.

The Superior Court, applying the standard of review for non-committal orders, determined that the preliminary inquiry judge's decision was based on an insufficiency of evidence, not a jurisdictional error.

As such, the decision was not susceptible to judicial review, and the Crown's application was dismissed.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful summary judgment motion brought by the defendants.

The defendants sought $45,380.73 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $9,000.

The court fixed costs at an all-inclusive sum of $17,500, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendants.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01(1), a Rule 49 offer, and the principle from Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than solely reflecting the successful litigant's actual incurred costs.

This criminal trial concerned a shooting incident at a busy mall.

The accused, Yaqoub Ali, was charged with multiple counts related to the shooting.

The central issue was the identification of the shooter, who was referred to as "Superman" based on surveillance video.

The court relied on a combination of surveillance video evidence, corroborated eyewitness testimony, and evidence extracted from the accused's cell phone (including text messages and photos) to establish the identity of the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, Yaqoub Ali, was charged with 10 counts related to a shooting at a mall.

The central issue was the identity of the shooter, referred to as "Superman" due to his attire.

The victim did not cooperate with the police.

The court relied on surveillance video evidence, the corroborated testimony of one eyewitness (Adam Kilmartin), and circumstantial evidence from the accused's cell phone, including text messages indicating a dispute with the victim and photographs showing the accused wearing a hat similar to the shooter's.

Despite inconsistencies in other eyewitness accounts, the cumulative effect of the evidence led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

Yaqoub Ali was found guilty.

This was a motion for summary judgment by eight of the named defendants (six holding companies and two individual directors) in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendants sought to dismiss claims against them, arguing they were not 'common and related employers' and that the corporate veil should not be pierced for the individual directors.

The court applied principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin for summary judgment motions, and considered the common employer doctrine and personal liability of corporate officers.

The motion was granted, dismissing the claims against the individual directors due to no evidence of fraud, deceit, dishonesty, or want of authority, and against the holding companies as they did not exercise effective control over the plaintiff's employment.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a breath demand.

At trial, where he was self-represented, the trial judge found the breath demand was lawful but provided no analysis or findings of fact regarding the arresting officer's grounds.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the principles from Sheppard, holding that the trial judge was required to provide clear reasons explaining why the officer had reasonable and probable grounds on both a subjective and objective basis.

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

The applicant sought a sending order under s. 15(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to send business records seized from the respondents to the Kingdom of Belgium for a criminal fraud investigation.

The respondents opposed the order, arguing the seized materials contained trade secrets and that the Belgian investigation was a bad faith attempt to gain a competitive advantage.

The court granted the sending order, finding the search warrant was lawfully executed and there was no evidence of bad faith.

The court noted that concerns regarding intellectual property were addressed by the treaty's restrictions on unauthorized disclosure and were matters for the Minister of Justice, not the court.

Following a five-day child protection trial where the court's judgment mirrored the respondent mother's formal offer to settle, the mother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society.

The court noted that an award of costs against a Children's Aid Society should be the exception, not the rule, to avoid deterring child welfare professionals from protecting children.

Finding that the Society did not act unreasonably or in bad faith but rather out of an abundance of caution, the court declined to award costs.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged that government secret agents had been attacking him with remote-controlled laser radiation and conducting unauthorized surveillance as part of a conspiracy.

The court found the allegations to be incurable and incapable of being substantiated in a court of law.

Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissed the action, making no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving while disqualified, arguing that the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable due to frailties in the police officer's identification evidence.

The summary conviction appeal judge reviewed the trial judge's reasons, noting that the trial judge had properly considered the weaknesses in the Crown's case and the principles of identification evidence.

Finding that the trial judge's conclusion was supported by the evidence and not unreasonable, the appeal was dismissed.

During a first-degree murder trial, the court issued written reasons for three oral evidentiary rulings.

First, evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct was admitted as its probative value in assessing the reliability of his confession outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Second, a spontaneous inculpatory utterance made by the accused to special constables while being transported was ruled voluntary and admissible.

Third, the defence was permitted to call a psychiatrist and psychologist as non-expert witnesses to testify about the accused's demeanour and pre-confession statements, but they were restricted from providing a diagnosis or testifying about post-confession statements.

Following a trial concerning a failed real estate transaction, the vendor sought damages for the difference between the agreed purchase price and the eventual resale price after the purchasers refused to close.

The purchasers successfully resisted the vendor’s $100,000 claim and obtained partial recovery on their counterclaim.

In this addendum and costs decision, the court determined the successful purchasers were entitled to costs under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the fairness and reasonableness principles from appellate authority, the court fixed costs at $30,000 all-inclusive payable by the unsuccessful vendor.

The court also clarified that a $1,000 deposit held by the real estate brokerage was to be returned to the purchasers as part of the rescission of the contract.

Following a motion in which the plaintiff obtained an amendment to pleadings, the court considered written submissions on the issue of costs.

The court determined that although the plaintiff was successful on the amendment motion, the timing of the motion weighed against awarding costs.

Referring to reasons given in the earlier endorsement, the court concluded that the circumstances did not justify a costs award.

Accordingly, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.