Sarah White

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against the accused, T.B., involving his niece, D.B., when she was five or six years old.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, supported by her mother's evidence regarding opportunity.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to the significant passage of time, her young age at the time of the alleged events, and inconsistencies in her and her mother's recollections.

The defence also highlighted the accused's identical twin brother as a potential source of confusion.

The court, applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and considering the unique aspects of child witness testimony, rejected the accused's denial, finding his evidence unreliable and incredible due to numerous contradictions and his extensive criminal record for dishonesty.

The court found the complainant's detailed narrative compelling and credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and ultimately found the accused guilty on all counts.

Paladin Labs Inc., as foreign representative for itself and Paladin Labs Canadian Holding Inc. (the Canadian Debtors), brought a motion under section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for recognition and enforcement of two orders granted by the United States Bankruptcy Court in their Chapter 11 cases: a Bidding Procedures Order and a Bar Date Order.

The motion was unopposed.

The court granted the motion, finding that recognition was consistent with principles of comity and Canadian public policy, and would enable the Canadian Debtors to proceed with the sale process to maximize asset value and ascertain claims.

The applicant creditor, Heliotrope Investment Corporation, applied for bankruptcy orders against the respondents, Martha and Gary Beach.

The applicant alleged the respondents owed debts exceeding $1,000 and had committed an act of bankruptcy by ceasing to meet their liabilities generally as they became due.

The respondents opposed the applications, arguing they had sufficient assets, the debts were disputed in related civil proceedings, and the applications were brought for an improper purpose.

The court found that the applicant established the debts and the act of bankruptcy.

The court rejected the respondents' arguments, finding no sufficient cause to dismiss or stay the applications, and issued the bankruptcy orders.

Dylon Duarte was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of Tyquan Brown.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which could range from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown sought 20 years, citing numerous aggravating factors including a history of domestic violence, after-the-fact conduct, and an element of planning.

The defence argued for a 10-12 year period, emphasizing lack of planning and the offender's remorse and efforts at rehabilitation.

The court found the murder to be within a domestic violence context, despite the victim being a stranger, due to the offender's rage and obsessive pursuit of his ex-partner leading to the killing.

Considering the aggravating factors and the expanded range for domestic violence murders (12-17 years), the court fixed the parole ineligibility period at 16 years.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-contact order with the victim's family.

The Crown prosecuted two accused on allegations arising from alleged human trafficking, procurement, sexual violence, kidnapping, and a related shooting.

The trial judge found both accused unreliable, but also concluded that the complainants' evidence presented serious credibility and reliability problems, including multiple inconsistent versions, contradictions with objective circumstances, and major evidentiary gaps.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt standard, the court held that corroborative records established only outer contours of movements and could not cure the central deficiencies in the evidence.

The Crown failed to prove the mens rea and actus reus of the trafficking and procurement offences, and also failed to prove the kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, shooting, and gun allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, charged with multiple counts of fraud related to bank loans, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel.

He argued he was indigent and had been denied Legal Aid.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's extensive business background and education made him capable of representing himself, meaning his right to a fair trial would not be compromised.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant failed to prove indigence, noting inconsistencies in evidence regarding his separation from his wife, his failure to pursue his share of the matrimonial home proceeds, and his lack of adequate financial disclosure.

The applicant was substantially successful on a motion to change and obtained a better result than his offer to settle.

The court resolved an outstanding issue regarding life insurance on consent, ordering the applicant to maintain an $18,000 policy until January 2018.

On the issue of costs, the court noted the applicant utilized both senior and junior counsel but failed to provide actual time dockets, raising concerns about duplication of effort.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the respondent's reasonable expectations, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $27,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, which may be credited against his spousal support arrears.

In the context of CCAA proceedings for U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), the applicant sought approval for Transition Arrangements with its parent company, a Business Preservation Plan involving significant cash conservation measures (including suspension of pension, OPEB, and municipal tax payments), and Amended DIP Financing.

The court approved the motions, finding that the Transition Arrangements were fair and reasonable, and that the Business Preservation Plan and DIP financing were necessary to allow USSC to continue operations and pursue a restructuring solution, despite objections from the union and municipalities regarding the suspension of benefits and taxes.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to armed bank robberies committed in Windsor and four additional robberies in Toronto involving firearms, disguises, and violence against bank employees.

The parties jointly proposed a global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The court held that although a higher sentence in the range of 12 to 15 years would otherwise be fit given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the joint submission did not meet the high threshold required to reject it.

The court also considered the application of the Truth in Sentencing Act and the proper credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719 of the Criminal Code.

Credit was granted at 1:1 for the period before the guilty pleas and 1.5:1 for the period after the pleas due to sentencing delay beyond the offenders’ control.