Robert Thomson

The offenders were found guilty of recruiting two minors for the purpose of exploitation and advertising sexual services.

At sentencing, they challenged the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 279.011 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the s. 7 overbreadth challenge but found that the mandatory minimum violated s. 12 as it was grossly disproportionate to the offenders' lower level of moral blameworthiness, and it could not be saved under s. 1.

The mandatory minimum was struck down, and the offenders were sentenced to 18 months and 11 months respectively.

The applicant Municipality sought a declaration of ownership over a strip of beach on Georgian Bay where the respondent had built a deck.

The respondent argued the beach was owned by the Provincial Crown.

The court analyzed the historical conveyances, including the original 1899 Crown Patent and a 1969 Reference Plan, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Walker.

The court found no express reservation of the beach in the Crown Patent or subsequent conveyances, concluding that the waterfront lots extended to the water's edge.

Consequently, the Municipality, having acquired the adjacent road, also owned the beach.

The respondent was found to be trespassing and ordered to remove the deck.

The accused, Jorden Larocque-Laplante, was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which could range from 10 to 25 years.

The judge considered the accused's character, the brutal nature and circumstances of the offence (including a hate-motivated element), the jury's recommendations, and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Despite mitigating factors such as youth and remorse, the significant aggravating factors led the court to impose a parole ineligibility period of 13 years.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle from the respondent's father in a private sale after seeing an advertisement claiming the vehicle had a 'new' engine.

The engine failed shortly after purchase, and the appellant sued for the cost of repairs, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breaches of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact and no errors of law.

The court confirmed that the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to private transactions between individuals who are not in the business of selling vehicles, and the facts did not support a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants, vendors of a farm property, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against them regarding an unregistered solar panel lease.

The plaintiff, who owned the solar panels, sued both the vendors and the purchaser after the purchaser denied him access to the property.

The vendors argued the purchaser had actual notice of the lease and was bound by it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial due to an insufficient evidentiary record, contradictory statements in closing documents including a statutory declaration, and the risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to have the partial defence of provocation left to the jury.

The Crown argued there was no air of reality to the defence.

The court applied the five-component air of reality test for provocation under s. 232 of the Criminal Code, considering both objective and subjective elements.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to have a reasonable doubt regarding the Crown disproving the elements of provocation, particularly concerning whether the victim's conduct constituted an indictable offence and whether it would deprive an ordinary person of self-control, despite the accused initiating the confrontation.

The court ruled that the defence of provocation would be left with the jury.

The accused pleaded guilty to ten offences committed between January and April 2016, including four counts of driving while prohibited, three counts of breach of recognizance, possession of stolen property, obstruction of a peace officer, and possession of marijuana.

The accused had an extensive criminal history with prior convictions for driving while disqualified, flight from police, dangerous driving, and numerous breaches of probation.

A Gladue report was prepared and a sentencing circle was held.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including home confinement for the first 12 months, recognizing the accused's Aboriginal background, systemic disadvantages, and demonstrated prospect of rehabilitation through his relationship and commitment to a rehabilitation plan.

The applicant sought the release of funds held in court related to a 2002 application for a mortgage discharge.

The respondent estate brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay and claim the funds, while the applicant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the respondent's claim as statute-barred or for delay.

The court found that both parties were responsible for the inordinate delay and declined to dismiss the application on that basis.

The court also found that the applicant's father's bankruptcy complicated the entitlement to the funds, requiring notice to the Trustee in bankruptcy before a final determination could be made.

Both motions were dismissed.

The offender was convicted after trial of three bank robberies while disguised, multiple car thefts and attempted car thefts, possession of instruments for breaking into cars, dangerous driving, and flight from police.

The Crown sought a 12-year global sentence consecutive to the offender's existing sentence, with parole eligibility restrictions under section 743.6, forfeiture of $1,350, a 15-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defence sought 7-9 years consecutive.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, comprising 8.5 years for robbery offences, 1 year concurrent on vehicle-related offences (consecutive to robbery sentence), and 6 months concurrent on dangerous driving and flight offences (consecutive to prior sentences).

Parole eligibility was restricted to 50% of the 8.5-year robbery sentence (4 years 3 months).

The court also imposed the requested ancillary orders including a 13-year driving prohibition and 22 years to pay the victim fine surcharge.

Ade Olumide brought an application for mandamus and a constitutional declaration challenging the Crown's stay of his private prosecutions against judges and the Crown for alleged fraud and false statements.

The court found the private prosecutions against judges to be an egregious abuse of process due to judicial immunity.

While acknowledging that vexatious litigant orders under provincial legislation do not bar private prosecutions under the Criminal Code, the court dismissed Olumide's application, deeming it vexatious and an abuse of process, and declined to issue an injunction requiring leave for future private prosecutions, noting existing safeguards in the Criminal Code.

The offender was convicted after trial of ten indictable firearms-related charges and one count of breach of probation arising from a single incident on November 27, 2014, in which he carried a concealed firearm to a restaurant, pointed it at a group of men, chased two of them while pointing the weapon, entered a motor vehicle with the firearm, and subsequently bragged about the incident on social media.

The court imposed a sentence of 48 months imprisonment, comprising 30 months concurrent on the active firearm offences and breach of probation, plus 18 months consecutive for four firearm prohibition breaches.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 6-year exemplary sentence and the defence request for 30 months, finding that while the offences were serious and committed by an offender with a violent criminal history and demonstrated contempt for court orders, the circumstances did not warrant the Crown's proposed sentence.

N.K. was charged with nine counts of assault, including assault with a weapon, against her four children.

The trial involved testimony from the children and their father.

The court found significant evidence of collusion between the children and their father, and concerns that the allegations were exaggerated or part of a family law dispute strategy.

The youngest child's testimony revealed discussions among the children and father prior to and during the trial, including coaching and expressions of animus towards the mother.

The court found the father's testimony self-serving and unreliable.

Due to the combined effect of collusion and animus, the court was left with reasonable doubt regarding the children's evidence and found N.K. not guilty on all charges.

The applicant sought to terminate a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order made pursuant to s. 490.012(2) following his conviction for indecent act contrary to s. 173(1)(a).

The order was made on May 13, 2010, and the applicant applied for termination after more than six years had elapsed.

The court applied the test under s. 490.016(1), requiring the applicant to establish on a balance of probabilities that the impact of continuing the order, including on privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

The court granted the application and terminated the order.

The accused was charged with 11 firearm-related offences arising from an incident on November 27, 2014, at a restaurant in Ottawa where he allegedly brandished a firearm at patrons.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification by Sheyna Antoine, corroborated by vehicle registration evidence linking the accused to the suspect vehicle and Twitter messages posted by the accused describing the incident.

The court found the identification evidence reliable when considered holistically with the corroborating evidence, despite initial frailties in the eyewitness testimony.

The court also determined that the object brandished was a real firearm based on witness descriptions, the manner of use, and the accused's own admissions in his Twitter posts.

The accused was convicted on all 11 counts.

The accused brought an application for bail review seeking release pending trial after a prior detention order based on the tertiary ground.

The accused argued that a strengthened bail plan with additional sureties, substantial financial pledges, and evidence of prior compliance constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court applied the framework from R. v. St‑Cloud governing bail review under ss. 520 and 521 of the Criminal Code.

It held that the proposed additional sureties and financial pledges did not constitute a material and relevant change in circumstances and did not sufficiently address the tertiary ground concerns.

Given the seriousness of the alleged offences, the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, and the potential for lengthy imprisonment, continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

A municipality applied for court confirmation of emergency building orders relating to a failed residential septic system and sought recovery of remediation costs to be added to the property tax roll under the Building Code Act and Municipal Act.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to confirm the municipality’s orders because statutory service and procedural requirements under the Building Code Act had not been complied with.

The court nevertheless found the septic system had failed and that the municipality reasonably incurred pumping costs to mitigate sewage seepage.

Fees related to an engineering report were not recoverable because the municipality unreasonably delayed disclosing the report to the homeowner.

Judgment was granted only for the septic pumping costs, which were ordered to be added to the property’s tax roll as a priority lien.

Former partners in a private school brought an action alleging breach of a buy‑out agreement following their resignation from the partnership.

The remaining partner asserted a set‑off, alleging the former partner breached a non‑solicitation and good faith clause in the partnership agreement by interfering with a student’s enrolment.

The court held the defendant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff solicited, enticed, or interfered with the student or breached the partnership agreement.

As the alleged breach was unproven, the claimed set‑off failed and the plaintiffs established their entitlement to amounts owing under the buy‑out agreement.

Judgment was granted for damages, interest under the Courts of Justice Act, and costs.

The appellant owners entered into a construction contract to build a house.

They overpaid the general contractor, who subsequently failed to pay the respondent subcontractors.

The subcontractors registered construction liens and claimed the owners were liable for the overpayment amount in addition to the 10 percent statutory holdback under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the owners' appeal, holding that under section 23(2) of the Act, an owner's liability to lien claimants is strictly limited to the statutory holdback they are required to retain, regardless of any overpayments made to the contractor.