R. Thomson

The accused brought a section 525 review of his detention.

He was facing charges including human trafficking, bank robbery, and possession of a stolen vehicle, and was arrested for breaching strict release conditions, including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

The court found that the continued detention of the accused was justified under the secondary ground, as he posed a substantial likelihood of re-offending even under the proposed strict conditions of release.

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 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.

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.