Samarra D’Souza

The court considered whether Dexter Peters was a party to a violent gunpoint robbery committed by his younger half-brother, J.M., in Toronto.

The Crown alleged Peters conspired with J.M. or aided and abetted the robbery, relying on circumstantial evidence including video surveillance, the presence of a GPS tracker on the victim’s car, and Peters’ conduct before, during, and after the offence.

The defence argued there were reasonable inferences consistent with innocence, including that Peters was unaware of J.M.’s plan and did not assist in the robbery.

The court found the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peters was a party to the offence, emphasizing the need for more than mere presence at the scene.

Peters was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant, ASG Technologies Group, Inc. (ASG), brought a motion to impose a discovery plan, which the plaintiff, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife), opposed, proposing its own version.

The primary dispute concerned the relevance and proportionality of various document categories requested by each party in a software licensing dispute.

The Master largely rejected Manulife's broad requests for "misconduct documents" and "valuation documents" related to ASG's other customers and internal financial data, finding them overbroad, disproportionate, or not sufficiently supported by the pleadings.

The Master also rejected ASG's requests for documents related to Manulife's internal dealings with its own customers regarding ASG's products.

The court imposed a discovery plan with specific, narrowed categories of documents to be produced and set deadlines for document exchange and examinations for discovery.

The defendant, John Hancock, brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action, arguing that a forum selection clause in the parties' agreement required the plaintiff, Infinite Media, to bring its claim in Boston, Massachusetts.

Infinite Media contended the clause mandated claims be brought in Ontario, specifically in the responding party's city or county within Ontario.

The court interpreted the clause holistically, considering the agreement's wording and factual matrix, and found that all claims were intended to be brought in Ontario, in the responding party's city or county.

The motion to dismiss or stay was dismissed.