SCJ 2012

The offender was convicted of multiple serious drug offences, including importing cocaine and exporting ecstasy, as well as firearms offences.

At sentencing, the defence argued that the offender's difficult youth in a crime-ridden neighbourhood as an African Canadian should mitigate his sentence, analogous to the Gladue principles for Aboriginal offenders.

The court rejected this argument, finding no evidentiary link between his early childhood and his commercial drug enterprise at age 40.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced by 6 years for pre-trial custody.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his guilty pleas to aggravated assault and assault with a weapon.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving violence and breaches of court orders.

Psychiatric evidence established that the offender suffered from anti-social personality disorder and substance abuse disorder, placing him at a high risk to violently re-offend.

The court found that the offender met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

However, based on the offender's positive institutional behaviour and rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, the court found he rebutted the presumption of an indeterminate sentence.

The court imposed a fixed sentence of seven years (reduced to one year after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The applicant corporation brought an application concerning a restraint order affecting property.

It was uncontested that neither the corporation nor its sole shareholder, officer, and director had been charged with any criminal offence related to the restraint order or the property.

The respondent did not dispute these facts and there was no cross‑examination on the supporting affidavit.

The court issued a supplementary endorsement confirming that these uncontested facts informed the earlier decision dismissing the application.

The Crown sought forfeiture of real property under s. 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following convictions of several members of a motorcycle club for drug trafficking and conspiracy offences.

Evidence showed that the property functioned as the clubhouse and operational hub for members involved in trafficking cocaine, oxycodone, and GHB, and was used for meetings, negotiations, and transactions connected to those offences.

The court held that trial evidence from the related criminal proceedings could be relied upon in the forfeiture hearing and concluded that the property was “offence‑related property” because it facilitated networking and discussions integral to the drug trafficking activities.

The respondent corporation failed to establish that it was an innocent owner or that it was sufficiently separate from the convicted offenders, many of whom were de facto shareholders or controlling members of the organization.

The court further held that forfeiture was not disproportionate given the seriousness, scale, and commercial nature of the offences and the fortified nature of the property.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, production of marijuana, and possession of brass knuckles.

Police executing a search warrant discovered 451 marijuana plants, seeds, and sophisticated growing equipment in the offender’s residence.

The offender had a prior conviction for marijuana production and had previously received a conditional sentence.

The court held that the scale of the operation, the residential setting, the presence of a weapon, and the offender’s prior similar conviction required a custodial sentence to achieve denunciation and deterrence.

A conditional sentence was rejected as inappropriate given the recidivist conduct.

The Family Responsibility Office sought enforcement of child support arrears against the respondent pursuant to prior consent orders governing periodic child support and extraordinary expenses.

The respondent disputed the arrears calculation, alleging that certain extraordinary expenses were improperly included, that payments previously made under protest were not credited, and that certain accounting charges were erroneous.

The court interpreted the prior variation order as having established a “clean slate” fixing arrears as of specified dates, thereby incorporating all credits and charges up to that time.

The court accepted the enforcement calculation and determined the respondent remained in arrears.

The respondent was ordered to pay the arrears by a specified date, failing which enforcement by committal could be sought.

Following a commercial lease trial between a tenant applicant and a landlord respondent, the court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The tenant sought $185,421.51 in post‑trial costs arising from extensive factual analysis required due to the landlord’s inadequate maintenance records and litigation conduct.

The court held that while the tenant had beaten settlement offers and was largely successful, the circumstances did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Considering the parties’ conduct, the scale of the litigation, and the principles in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed costs on an enhanced partial indemnity basis.

The respondents brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the applicant in an application seeking to quash a municipal by-law under the City of Toronto Act.

The court had previously struck portions of an earlier affidavit for containing irrelevant historical allegations and improper innuendo about prior municipal actions.

On the renewed motion, the respondents argued the revised affidavit continued to include irrelevant references to earlier by-laws and municipal initiatives.

The court held that most of the objectionable material had been sufficiently sanitized and could remain as factual background potentially relevant to the issues, including whether the impugned by-law conferred a prohibited bonus.

However, one paragraph expressing the deponent’s concerns about public funds used in 2000 was struck as irrelevant.

Following convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after a controlled delivery operation, the court imposed penitentiary sentences on two offenders.

The intercepted shipment contained approximately 3.8 kilograms of heroin concealed in fireplace logs.

The court considered mitigating factors including stringent pre‑sentence bail conditions amounting to house arrest, positive pre‑sentence reports, lack of prior criminal records, and cooperation with police.

The court held that wilful blindness to the nature of the drug was not a mitigating factor following appellate authority.

Given the significant quantity of heroin and the offenders’ respective roles, the court imposed substantial penitentiary terms while recognizing the lesser role of one offender.

The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence for narcotics offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

He argued that the Information to Obtain relied on a confidential informant whose information was not compelling, credible, or sufficiently corroborated and contained misleading or prejudicial material.

The court held that the informant’s information was detailed, first‑hand, and supported by prior reliability and police corroboration through surveillance and database checks.

The issuing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the warrant and no breach of s. 8 of the Charter was established.

In any event, applying the Grant framework, the evidence would not be excluded because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and central to the prosecution.

In an application concerning a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a condominium allegedly funded by a loan, the applicant sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file a supplementary affidavit after cross-examinations had been conducted.

The proposed affidavit asserted that payments previously identified by the respondent as repayment of the condominium loan were actually repayment of a different loan.

The court applied the governing factors for leave to file additional affidavit evidence after cross-examination, including relevance, responsiveness to cross-examination, prejudice, and the explanation for failing to introduce the evidence earlier.

Although the respondent made strong submissions opposing the request, the court accepted counsel’s explanation that the omission was due to oversight and found any prejudice could be compensated through costs and procedural directions.

Leave was granted on strict terms including a timetable for responding evidence and costs payable to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order directing a trial of issues arising from a dispute between equal shareholders.

The court considered extensive affidavit evidence and noted that the parties had the opportunity to cross-examine on that evidence.

The court concluded that there were no material facts in dispute and that the principal issue could properly be determined on a motion rather than requiring a trial.

Relying on prior authority confirming that issues may be resolved on motion where facts are not contested, the court dismissed the applicant’s motion seeking a trial of issues and granted relief to the respondents.

A self-represented applicant sought costs against a provincial court judge personally after successfully obtaining relief relating to the judge’s refusal to remove him as counsel during a criminal trial.

The Superior Court considered whether costs could be awarded against the judge and whether the Crown should receive costs against the applicant.

The court held that judges enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for acts performed in their judicial capacity under s. 82 of the Courts of Justice Act, barring any costs award against the judge.

The court also declined to award costs to the Crown against the applicant despite concerns about the merit of the motion.

Both costs requests were dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cognitively delayed adult complainant.

The incidents allegedly occurred in the bathroom and kitchen of an apartment where both were guests.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, rejecting the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent.

Despite some inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the court found the core allegations corroborated by a witness and the accused's own admissions of uninvited touching.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

A court-appointed forensic accountant brought a motion seeking payment of a final invoice for investigative work performed in complex estate and trust litigation following the death of a family patriarch.

The expert had previously estimated that completion of the mandate would cost approximately $100,000 but later submitted a substantially larger final invoice.

The court held that the expert bore the onus of justifying the amount and found the explanation for the dramatic increase unpersuasive.

In the circumstances, the expert was required to abide by the prior representation to the court and the motion for payment of the additional amount was dismissed.

Requests for production of the expert’s working papers were found premature, and a request by other professionals for reimbursement of costs was deferred to the next case management judge.

The appellant appealed her conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams.

She argued the trial judge erred in dismissing her section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay and in finding that her breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The summary conviction appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's characterization of the delay periods or his conclusion that the prejudice was minimal.

The court also upheld the finding that the breath samples, taken one hour and 36 minutes after the vehicle was stopped, were obtained within a reasonably prompt timeframe.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a judgment declaring the respondent a vexatious litigant, the applicant sought costs of $36,868.25.

The respondent opposed the costs submissions, characterizing them as an abuse of process.

The court found the applicant's claim for partial indemnity costs to be fair and reasonable, noting the substantial preparation required to review the respondent's extensive litigation history.

The court discounted the amount sought for pleadings and fixed total costs payable by the respondent at $29,951.49.

The offender was convicted after trial of conspiracy to export MDMA and possession of MDMA for the purpose of exportation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The evidence established participation as a principal intermediary in a large-scale scheme exporting tens of thousands of ecstasy pills from Canada to the United States.

The court emphasized the scale of the operation, the substantial potential profits, and the need for general deterrence in commercial drug trafficking involving international exportation.

Although the offender had no prior criminal record and had supportive personal circumstances, the court found that only a custodial sentence would be proportionate.

Concurrent six-year penitentiary terms were imposed along with firearms prohibition and DNA orders.

The Crown brought an application to admit a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to a missing minute of the video recording, an unrecorded cell block visit, and a failure to comply with a remand warrant.

The accused also argued that a previous ruling in a separate proceeding excluding the same statement should bar its admission based on issue estoppel.

The court held that issue estoppel does not apply to voluntariness rulings.

The court further found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, as the missing recording and technical warrant violation did not overbear the accused's will.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography involving a substantial collection of images and videos depicting very young children in explicit sexual acts.

The court emphasized that denunciation and general deterrence are the dominant sentencing principles for child pornography offences, noting the continuing victimization caused by the possession and circulation of such material.

While the accused was a first offender with positive personal circumstances and a supportive family, aggravating factors included the disturbing nature of the material, the young age of the victims, the duration of offending, and the absence of evidence that the accused had sought specialized treatment.

The court rejected a defence proposal for a significantly lower custodial sentence and imposed a custodial term within the established range.

Ancillary orders included probation, sex offender registration, a prohibition order relating to contact with minors, DNA collection, and forfeiture of computer equipment.