Roger

The accused, a registered massage therapist, was charged with four counts of sexual assault relating to four female clients.

The complainants alleged inappropriate touching of their breasts, glutes, and inner thighs during massage treatments.

The accused denied the allegations, testifying that he always obtained prior consent for treatment and that the touching was clinically indicated.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's evidence unreliable due to his admitted lax charting and practices.

However, considering the expert evidence on clinical indications for massaging certain areas and inconsistencies in the complainants' testimonies, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused were charged with numerous weapons offences after police intercepted their vehicle near the border and found a duffel bag containing nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity magazines.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on text messages, the accused's proximity to the bag, and their interactions with the individual who brought the bag into the vehicle.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the contents of the bag, as it was reasonably possible they were simply giving a friend a ride without knowledge of the firearms.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault involving five female complainants he met through online dating platforms.

The central issue was consent and the credibility and reliability of the witnesses.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court assessed the evidence for each complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of sexually assaulting two of the complainants, finding their evidence credible and rejecting the accused's testimony.

For the other three complainants, the court found the accused not guilty, as the evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding either the reliability of the complainants' memories or their subjective non-consent.

The applicant corporation sought a declaration that a patent agreement executed by its former president with the respondent was invalid, arguing the president lacked authority without a two-thirds majority shareholder approval.

The respondent brought a counter-application to enforce the agreement, arguing it was a valid licensing and option agreement.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the counter-application, finding no evidence of a unanimous shareholder agreement restricting the president's authority.

The court applied the indoor management rule and section 18 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, holding that the respondent was entitled to rely on the president's apparent authority to bind the corporation.

The applicant, a 36-year-old controller with six years of service, was terminated without cause.

The employer paid her statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and relied on the termination clause in her employment contract to deny common law notice.

The applicant brought an application arguing the termination clause was void.

The court found that the 'for cause' provision violated the ESA by allowing termination without notice for common law cause, which is a lower standard than the ESA's 'willful misconduct' standard.

Applying Waksdale, the court held that this rendered the entire termination clause void.

The court also found the 'without cause' provision independently violated the ESA by excluding benefits and bonuses during the notice period.

The court awarded the applicant 10 months of common law notice, less mitigation earnings and statutory amounts already paid.

The respondent brought a motion to stay three interlocutory orders pending leave to appeal and to consolidate the notices of motion for leave to appeal.

The court found that the order for the payment of money was automatically stayed under Rule 63.01.

However, the court dismissed the motion to stay the other two procedural orders, finding the respondent failed to establish a serious issue, irreparable harm, or balance of convenience.

The motion to consolidate was also dismissed as it would cause confusion.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the applicant.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was over 40 months.

The court deducted various periods of defence delay, including time for counsel's vacation, adjournments for subsequent charges, and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also deducted time as exceptional circumstances due to the tragic passing of the accused's initial counsel and the resulting second intake period.

After deductions, the net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also noted that the transitional exception would apply.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to allow a witness to testify via videoconference at an upcoming trial.

The witness suffered from severe back pain and had limited ability to travel or remain seated for long periods.

The court granted the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured videoconference testimony and that any concerns regarding cross-examination or assessing credibility could be addressed by the court's directions.