SCJ 2016

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his guilty pleas to several offences, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon against former intimate partners.

The offender had a history of escalating violence against domestic partners, often fueled by substance abuse, and committed a brutal assault on the day he was released from custody.

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

Concluding that a lesser measure such as a fixed sentence with a long-term supervision order would not adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The applicant, charged with production and possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total time from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was over 54 months.

Applying the transitional framework from R. v. Jordan, the court deducted significant periods of defence delay caused by the applicant repeatedly changing counsel, waiving s. 11(b) rights, and re-electing his mode of trial.

The net delay was calculated at approximately 24.5 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court trials.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of armed robbery of a pharmacy, assault with a weapon, wearing a mask, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The offender struck the pharmacist with a handgun and stole opioids.

The court considered the offender's youth, criminal record, and the vulnerability of pharmacies.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, consisting of 5.5 years for robbery, concurrent sentences for assault and wearing a mask, and a consecutive 6-month sentence for the firearms prohibition breach, less credit for pre-trial custody.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an O'Connor application seeking the production of the deceased's OHIP records.

The court found no foundation that the records were likely relevant to the issues at trial, noting that the best evidence of the deceased's mental health was an existing psychologist's report.

The court concluded the application was based on speculation and sought to enlarge collateral issues.

The first stage test was not met, and the application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to several offences, including break and enter to steal a firearm, motor vehicle theft, and possession of a firearm obtained by crime.

Following the theft, the accused crashed the stolen motorcycle and sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.

The accused brought a Charter challenge arguing that the one-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2)(a) of the Criminal Code constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter, given his medical condition and vulnerability in custody.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the one-year sentence was not grossly disproportionate for the accused or in reasonable hypothetical scenarios.

The court imposed a global sentence of one year imprisonment, noting the correctional facility could accommodate the accused's medical needs.

The court issued a corrigenda to an endorsement released on August 18, 2016.

The amendment added a sub-paragraph adjourning the applicant's motion for an order removing the prevention of the parents attending the children's events while in the care of the other parent.

The motion was adjourned to be brought back in accordance with the Family Law Rules.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault following a stabbing at a house party.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the attacker.

The accused testified and denied stabbing the complainant, but the court rejected his evidence due to significant inconsistencies with his post-arrest statement.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and corroborated by DNA evidence on the knife and a Facebook message from the accused expressing remorse.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The plaintiff purchased a used 2006 BMW from the defendant dealer.

Shortly after purchase, the vehicle experienced significant mechanical issues, including excessive oil consumption and computer malfunctions.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, claiming the vehicle was not of merchantable quality.

The court found that because the 'as is' box on the purchase agreement was not checked, the implied warranties under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Protection Act applied.

The court held the vehicle was not reasonably fit for its purpose and awarded the plaintiff $11,606.21 for repair estimates and inspection costs, dismissing claims for rental car and insurance expenses.

The moving party, Zayo Inc., previously had its motion dismissed.

The motion sought an order for the Monitor to pay Zayo $1,228,799.81 from the proceeds of the sale of the applicants' assets.

In this costs endorsement, Zayo argued that costs are not the norm in CCAA proceedings.

The court disagreed, finding this to be an exceptional case where the normal rule of costs should apply, as the real opponents (the secured lenders and the purchaser) were not insolvent.

The court awarded costs against Zayo, fixing them at $30,000 each for Primus and BMO, and $20,000 each for Birch and the Monitor.

The defendant employee, accused of defrauding the plaintiff employer of over $470,000, brought a motion for further and better documentary production.

The defendant counterclaimed for unpaid loans and wrongful dismissal, alleging she was directed to make cash payments to creditors and others.

The Master granted the motion, ordering broad production of cheques, invoices, bank statements, and financial records, finding that the employer's unorthodox accounting practices and the serious nature of the fraud allegations necessitated extensive documentary discovery to allow forensic reconstruction of the financial history.

The appellant appealed her convictions for threatening death and assault with intent to resist arrest.

She raised several grounds of appeal, including ineffective assistance of counsel, reversal of the burden of proof, and improper admission of prejudicial evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge had improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the appellant to assist the court with her evidence and using disbelief of her evidence to accept the Crown's evidence.

The court also found that highly prejudicial bad character and hearsay evidence was improperly admitted at trial.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

Following a successful appeal regarding a late jury notice, the Ministry of Finance sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the issue was novel, or alternatively, that the quantum should be reduced.

The court rejected the novelty argument, noting the issue arose from the respondent's failure to serve a jury notice in time.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded $6,264.40 to the Ministry, payable by a specified date.

The creditor sought to lift a stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to allow a civil action for loans and punitive damages to proceed to judgment.

The creditor argued material prejudice and that the debt should survive discharge under s. 178(1)(e) due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court found no causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and the creation of the debt, and that the pleadings lacked particularity for fraud.

The court also determined that the prejudice was subjective, not objective, and that lifting the stay would imperil the approved consumer proposal, which was more favourable to creditors than bankruptcy.

The motion was denied.

The Applicant, having successfully obtained judgment for damages in a prior application, sought partial indemnity costs.

The Respondent challenged the quantum of legal fees, arguing they were excessive and should be reduced by 25%.

The court, applying the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principle of proportionality, found the Applicant's claimed time reasonable.

The Respondent's conduct, including delays in delivering records and cross-examinations, was noted as unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court dismissed the Respondent's request for a reduction and awarded the Applicant the full amount of claimed partial indemnity costs.

The applicant, Uzma Shahid, sought preservation and transfer of assets from her estranged husband, Shahid Ayyub, and his business associate, Nadeem Ahmed, alleging asset depletion and fraud.

Mr. Ayyub had defaulted in the main application.

The court found that Mr. Ahmed had received substantial funds from Mr. Ayyub, which Ms. Shahid alleged were proceeds of fraud due to forged signatures on investment agreements.

The court drew an adverse inference from Mr. Ahmed's incomplete disclosure and ordered the continuation of asset freezing and the transfer of $128,000 from Mr. Ahmed to Ms. Shahid's solicitor as security for child support, spousal support, and equalization payments.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The offender was convicted by a jury of unlawful act manslaughter for the shooting death of his wife during a struggle over a loaded handgun.

The Crown sought 7 to 8 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a sentence of time served.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness to be at the higher end of the spectrum due to the domestic context and the introduction of a loaded firearm into a volatile situation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years, 5 months, and 23 days.

The accused, Yaqoub Ali, was charged with 10 counts related to a shooting at a mall.

The central issue was the identity of the shooter, referred to as "Superman" due to his attire.

The victim did not cooperate with the police.

The court relied on surveillance video evidence, the corroborated testimony of one eyewitness (Adam Kilmartin), and circumstantial evidence from the accused's cell phone, including text messages indicating a dispute with the victim and photographs showing the accused wearing a hat similar to the shooter's.

Despite inconsistencies in other eyewitness accounts, the cumulative effect of the evidence led the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

Yaqoub Ali was found guilty.

Steven Byford pleaded guilty to aggravated assault of Darryl MacDougall, his mother's domestic partner, following a domestic argument where Byford stabbed MacDougall three times with a steak knife.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a weapon, multiple stab wounds, and the domestic context, alongside significant mitigating factors such as Byford's guilty plea, youth, lack of prior record, positive pre-sentence report, and low risk of reoffending.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 16 months in jail, followed by two years of probation, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition order, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's rehabilitative potential and psychological vulnerabilities.

The plaintiff was successful on a motion for a stay of proceedings and security for costs against the defendant.

In this costs endorsement, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs of the motion at $15,500 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the extensive litigation history, the defendant's unpaid costs awards, and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The defendant was ordered to pay the costs by a specified date, failing which its forthcoming motion to set aside the trial judgment would be dismissed.

The accused challenged the validity of search warrants and sought to exclude seized evidence under s.24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the first Information to Obtain (ITO) fatally defective due to a systemic practice of not swearing ITOs, and the second telewarrant invalid because the precondition of impracticability to appear in person was not met.

Considering the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct, including deliberate deception and systemic disregard for warrant procedures, the court excluded the firearm, shell casings, and surveillance equipment seized from the accused's residence.