Robert J. Smith

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences involving a young person in a relationship of dependency, as well as assault-related offences.

The trial centred on credibility, with the court applying the framework from R. v. W.(D.) to assess conflicting testimony between the complainant and defence witnesses.

The court accepted the complainant’s detailed and consistent evidence, finding it corroborated in part by contemporaneous writings and surrounding circumstances.

The accused’s denial and supporting testimony from family members were rejected as unreliable and biased.

The court convicted the accused on four sexual offence counts and one count of simple assault but acquitted on a separate assault count and on assault with a weapon.

The offender was convicted of possession of a large quantity of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered approximately 29 pounds in the trunk of his vehicle during a highway stop.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, an intermittent custodial sentence followed by probation, emphasizing the offender’s role as a single parent and the passage of time since prior offences.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12–15 months given the offender’s prior trafficking convictions and the substantial value of the drugs.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives and that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for a repeat offender involved with a large quantity of drugs.

A custodial sentence of nine months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation was imposed.

Following motions under the Partition Act concerning the sale of a jointly owned commercial property, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs significantly exceeding the guideline hourly rates published by the Costs Subcommittee of the Civil Rules Committee.

The court held that the guideline rates are not mandatory and may be exceeded where justified by factors such as inflation, the substantial monetary value of the dispute, the sophistication of the parties, and the retention of Toronto counsel.

Adjusted hourly rates above the guideline maximum were approved, but the overall costs claimed were reduced due to divided success on the motions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay partial indemnity costs of $20,000 plus disbursements.

Following a jury verdict in a complex personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a licensed establishment, the successful plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $300,000.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should affect the costs award and that the statutory deductible under s. 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act should be deducted from the damages when assessing whether settlement offers were exceeded.

The court held that the statutory deductible must not be subtracted when determining entitlement to costs, following appellate authority.

Although the defendant’s settlement offers did not comply with Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, they remained relevant under Rule 49.13 as discretionary factors.

Considering proportionality, the complexity of the trial, the amount recovered compared to the amount claimed, and counsel conduct during trial, the court fixed costs at $150,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The court determined costs following a motion concerning whether a proceeding could continue as a representative action under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Success on the underlying motion was divided: the moving party succeeded on the central issue that the action could proceed as a representative proceeding meeting the test analogous to certification under the Class Proceedings Act, but the responding parties succeeded on issues including that only individual union members, not the union itself, could act as representative plaintiffs and that particulars were required for a negligent misrepresentation claim.

Applying the factors in Rule 57, including relative success, complexity, and conduct of the parties, the court concluded that the moving party was overall more successful.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting divided success and certain pleading deficiencies.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a child under the offender’s care.

The offender compelled the child to perform oral sex and threatened her with death if she refused, constituting a serious breach of trust by a person acting in a parental role.

The court considered aggravating factors including the offender’s position of trust, threats used to compel the sexual act, and the psychological impact on the complainant, while recognizing the offender’s lack of prior criminal record as a mitigating factor.

The court also addressed whether time spent on bail with a curfew should reduce the custodial sentence and concluded that such conditions warranted minimal credit.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence and reviewing comparable appellate authorities, the court imposed a four‑year custodial sentence with credit for pre‑trial custody and several ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after striking a taxi driver with a metal rod and kicking him while he lay unconscious after being punched by a co‑accused.

The defence claimed the taxi driver attacked first with a baton and that the accused neither struck nor kicked the victim.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony and that of the co‑accused, finding it inconsistent with physical evidence and the credible testimony of three independent eyewitnesses.

The court held that hitting the victim on the head with a metal rod and kicking him while unconscious created objectively foreseeable bodily harm and formed part of a joint assault with the co‑accused.

Although the permanent loss of smell was attributed to the co‑accused’s punch, the accused’s participation made him a party to the aggravated assault under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.