Sarah Walker

Boris Borissov, a Toronto Police Service officer, was sentenced for multiple offences including theft, fraudulent use of bank cards, trafficking stolen property, attempt to obstruct justice, unauthorized use of police computer systems, and possession of a motor vehicle obtained by crime.

The offences involved abusing his position to steal from vulnerable victims (a missing person and a deceased woman) and to assist criminal associates by providing internal police information and obstructing investigations.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for police officers who breach public trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as good character, PTSD, and rehabilitation efforts, the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years' incarceration, finding the offences to be profound and repeated abuses of police power.

This case involves a police officer, Kevin Arnem, charged with assault causing bodily harm and using a weapon (his K-9 dog, Nitro) in committing the assault, contrary to section 267(b) and 267(a) of the Criminal Code, respectively.

The incident occurred during the arrest of Ramanpreet Singh, who was found in a stolen vehicle.

The central issue was whether the deployment of the K-9 dog was a reasonable use of force under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found Mr. Singh's testimony unreliable but relied on video evidence and other police officers' accounts.

Applying a modified objective test, the court concluded that Officer Arnem acted on reasonable grounds and used necessary force given the high-risk nature of the arrest, the suspect's non-compliance, and the limited time to react.

Officer Arnem was found not guilty on both counts.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held to manage multiple related actions.

The court noted that Commercial List matters were being traversed to the regular Civil list.

Directions were given for the filing of outstanding pleadings, setting aside defaults by consent, and establishing a mutually convenient discovery schedule with a target completion date of December 31, 2022.

The court also provided instructions for scheduling anticipated motions, including a potential Mareva injunction and a motion to join the trials.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

A case conference was held regarding five related actions, three of which were on the Commercial List and two were regular civil matters.

Counsel agreed that the actions should be case managed together for efficiency.

The judge agreed to act as the case management judge for all five cases, which will require transferring the Commercial List actions to regular civil actions.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug-related offences following his arrest during a police investigation into drug trafficking and firearms storage at an apartment complex in Scarborough.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and search, alleging breaches of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found that although the arrest was precipitous, the officers had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including confidential source information about drugs and firearms, observations of an apparent drug transaction involving another suspect, and the accused's proximity to that suspect.

The court dismissed the Charter applications and found the accused guilty on all counts.

The appellants appealed from a Superior Court judgment that enforced a term of Minutes of Settlement between the parties arising from a failed business arrangement and law practice shared between siblings.

The appellants raised two issues: (1) that the application judge erred in refusing to grant an adjournment, and (2) that the application judge erred in concluding that paragraph one of the Minutes of Settlement was a separate enforceable term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjournment was properly refused and that paragraph one was indeed a separate enforceable obligation independent of other disputed amounts between the parties.

The plaintiff, 2298679 Ontario Inc. dba Aurum Property Care, brought an ex parte motion for an Anton Piller Order to search and seize electronic devices, an injunction restraining the defendants from using confidential customer information, and a sealing order.

The court dismissed the Anton Piller Order due to a lack of an "extremely strong prima facie case" and insufficient evidence of likely destruction of material.

However, the court granted an interim injunction and mandatory order for ten days, prohibiting the defendants from passing themselves off as Aurum, accessing or exploiting Aurum's confidential information, and requiring them to retain and disclose any such information in their possession.

Following a successful application for the rescission of a contract to purchase seat licenses due to misrepresentation, the applicant sought costs on the higher end of the partial indemnity scale.

The respondent argued for a lower amount based on its own costs outline and the simplicity of the issues.

The court found the respondent's position on the merits was entirely without merit and awarded costs on the higher end of the partial indemnity scale, but reduced the applicant's claimed hours by 30% for being excessive.

Costs were fixed at $21,948.35.

The defendant was found asleep in his vehicle parked in the middle of a residential street with the engine running.

Police arrested him for impaired care or control and "over 80" (excessive blood alcohol concentration).

The Crown charged him with both offences.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of his breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging police violated his right to counsel by failing to facilitate contact with his counsel of choice.

The court found the police breached the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights and excluded the breath test evidence, resulting in acquittal on the "over 80" charge.

However, the court convicted on the impaired care or control charge based on the defendant's condition at the scene.

The accused was charged with breach of probation for failing to attend and actively participate in the Partner Assault Response (PAR) program as directed.

The Crown sought to introduce copies of business records (sign-in sheets, attendance sheets, and a client agreement) generated by the PAR program through the testimony of the program's case coordinator.

The court ruled that the documents were inadmissible because they failed to meet the requirements for admission under both the Canada Evidence Act and the common law.

The copies were not properly authenticated, entries appeared on the copies that did not exist on the originals, and the person testifying did not make the copies or participate in the redaction process.

The accused was charged with Operation over 80 and Disobey Stop Sign contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The defence argued that the officer breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights by failing to provide an opportunity to consult counsel between the formation of reasonable suspicion and the arrival of the roadside screening device (ASD).

The defence further contended this led to an unlawful seizure of breath, breaching s. 8 rights, and sought exclusion of the breath readings under s. 24(2).

The court found no breach of s. 10(b) rights, as the officer had a reasonable expectation the ASD would arrive within minutes and was prepared to facilitate counsel access within 10 minutes.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court would not exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) following a Grant analysis, as the seriousness of any breach was minimal and the public interest in adjudicating the serious charge on its merits outweighed exclusion.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance arising from an incident on February 11, 2017.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant, Angel Bryan.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony, admitted lies regarding the identity of a witness, and a prior conviction for attempted fraud.

Despite evidence of injuries and blood at the scene, the court concluded that the credibility problems and absence of corroborating evidence left reasonable doubt as to whether the assaults occurred.

All charges were dismissed.

A pharmacist who owned and operated a pharmacy pleaded guilty to breach of trust contrary to the Criminal Code.

He admitted to submitting billings to the Ontario Drug Benefits Program for medications without proof of dispensation, receiving benefits knowing the claims could not be substantiated.

The audit revealed discrepancies in drug quantities billed versus purchased, with unsubstantiated claims totalling $155,466, though actual loss recovered was $46,506.04.

The defendant faced suspension of billing privileges and termination of his subscription agreement.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and specific conditions, considering the defendant's exemplary personal antecedents, community contributions, full restitution, genuine remorse, and the aberrant nature of the conduct.