Sara Hickey

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, attempted murder, and firearms offences following a public shooting at a shopping mall.

The offender fired at an intended target but missed, instead striking and killing an innocent bystander.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years for the murder, alongside concurrent sentences of 12 years for attempted murder and 8 years for the firearms offences.

The court rejected the application of the rule against multiple convictions for the attempted murder charge, noting the offences involved different victims.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding $1,070,000 to the respondent in a dispute over ownership of a commercial property on Parliament Street in Toronto.

The trial judge found that the father had gifted the property to his daughter, and therefore the proceeds of sale belonged to her.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings, finding they met the three criteria for a valid gift and were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff corporation, solely owned by the daughter of the deceased, brought an action against the deceased's estate to recover $1,070,000.

The deceased had incorporated the plaintiff to purchase a commercial property for his daughter.

After the property was sold for a profit, the deceased withdrew the funds from the plaintiff's bank account for his own use.

The estate argued the plaintiff was a bare trustee and the deceased was the beneficial owner.

The court found no documentary or credible testimonial evidence of a trust, concluding the corporation and its funds belonged entirely to the daughter.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for the full amount taken.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

She changed the registration colour of a vehicle used by her boyfriend during a murder to avoid police detection.

The court considered her 876 days of pre-trial custody, credited as 1,314 days (3.5 years).

The court imposed a sentence of one day in jail in addition to the pre-trial custody, declining to order probation as the offender had demonstrated rehabilitation while on bail.

During a jury trial for being an accessory after the fact to murder, the accused argued that the defence of duress should be left with the jury.

The alleged duress arose from the accused’s relationship with a violent offender and prior threatening communications.

The court applied the “air of reality” test and held that there was no evidence of an explicit or implicit threat temporally connected to the accused’s conduct or made for the purpose of compelling the offence.

Earlier threats and violent conduct occurring a year prior lacked the necessary nexus to the impugned acts.

The defence of duress was therefore withdrawn from the jury.

The Applicant, Toronto School of Technology Inc., appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its registration under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Registrar's investigation revealed that the Applicant had engaged in egregious conduct, including providing unauthorized refunds to students funded by the Second Career program, delivering vocational programs remotely without approval, failing to maintain proper student records, and scheduling instructors to teach multiple classes simultaneously.

The Tribunal found the evidence against the Applicant compelling and rejected the Applicant's defense of an "honest but mistaken belief." The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant failed to operate the college in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and ordered the Superintendent to refuse to renew the registration.

The applicant filed a breach of settlement application alleging the respondent failed to comply with a term designating her as the key point of contact and subject matter expert for a project.

The applicant sought to introduce evidence of statements made by the respondent during mediation to interpret the settlement term.

The Tribunal held that the settlement language was unambiguous and excluded the extrinsic evidence under the parol evidence rule, noting that admitting such evidence would undermine mediation confidentiality.

The Tribunal then assessed the documentary evidence and concluded the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in proving a breach, as the respondent had formally assigned her the agreed-upon role.

The application was dismissed.

A casino operator sought summary judgment against an Ontario resident for unpaid gambling credit advanced through casino markers.

The defendant argued Ontario was not the appropriate forum and claimed he did not remember signing the credit documents due to intoxication.

The court held Ontario had jurisdiction because the defendant resided and held assets in Ontario and had attorned to the jurisdiction through his pleadings.

Applying Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the documentary evidence, dishonoured cheques, and post‑transaction communications acknowledging the debt.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding balance plus contractual interest.