SCJ 2019

The court sentenced the offender following convictions for sexual interference arising from prolonged sexual abuse of a child by a parental figure in a position of trust, with related convictions for invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, and threats stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Applying the sentencing principles in the Criminal Code, the court held that denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society predominated in light of the complainant’s age, the prolonged pattern of abuse, the trust relationship, the threat made at the outset, and the serious victim impact.

The court placed the case in the seven- to eight-year range but reduced the custodial term to account for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

A sentence of six years and 321 days was imposed, together with multiple ancillary orders including a tailored lifetime s. 161 prohibition.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing it was impecunious and that its financial state was caused by the defendant's actions.

The court found the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to prove impecuniosity, noting significant gaps and contradictions in the financial disclosure regarding the plaintiff's sole shareholder and related companies.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in tranches and pay costs of the motion.

During a jury trial for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a minor complainant, the Crown called the complainant's mother to testify.

In response to a question from the Crown, the mother stated that she believed the allegations because her daughter would never lie about something like that.

The defence moved for a mistrial on the basis that this constituted inadmissible oath-helping evidence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the mother's statement caused irremediable prejudice to the accused that could not be cured by a limiting instruction to the jury.

The plaintiffs and defendants, former business partners in the security surveillance equipment industry, brought competing motions for interlocutory injunctive relief following a bitter separation.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from using a disputed trademark, accessing the plaintiffs' computer systems, and making defamatory statements.

The defendants cross-moved to enjoin the plaintiffs from competing and soliciting customers.

The court dismissed the trademark injunction, finding damages were an adequate remedy, but granted the injunctions regarding computer access, website redirection, and defamation.

The defendants' cross-motion was dismissed as premature and lacking evidence of irreparable harm.

Supplementary reasons establishing the timeline and procedure for the parties to make written submissions on costs following the release of the main judgment.

Following divided success on multiple family law motions, both parties sought costs.

The mother sought full recovery of $73,845 based on an offer to settle, while the father sought partial indemnity of $10,971.

The court found that while success was evenly divided, the mother was entitled to some costs because two severable paragraphs of her offer to settle were as favourable as the order obtained.

The court awarded the mother $6,000 in costs, offset by her share of the costs for cross-examining an expert witness, resulting in a net award of $4,566.

The court also clarified a previous order regarding the father's spring break access.

Following a trial on damages for the repudiation of a commercial lease, the plaintiff sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle and allegations of perjury by the defendants.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity costs, finding no special circumstances or perjury.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the trial and re-ordered the payment of costs from a prior summary judgment motion, resulting in a total costs award of $55,461.70 to the plaintiff.

Following a tragic incident where the defendant intentionally drove her vehicle into a river, killing two children, civil actions were commenced.

The defendant's insurer, Aviva, denied liability coverage but was required to pay the statutory minimum.

The plaintiff's underinsurer, State Farm, settled the plaintiff's claim and brought a motion seeking an order that Aviva pay 50% of the costs of that settlement.

The court granted the motion, finding that because Aviva remained an active participant in the litigation to maximize its credit on a separate underinsurance claim, it should share the costs burden equally with State Farm.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a home invasion and robbery.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the recognition evidence of two victims who were familiar with the accused.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to discrepancies between the victims' trial testimony and their initial statements to police, as well as the brief time they had to observe the perpetrators.

Furthermore, an alibi witness raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's whereabouts at the time of the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging the defendants conspired to acquire a property by fraud.

The moving defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim.

The plaintiff argued its interest in the property, registered under the Personal Property Security Act, had priority over a subsequent mortgage registered under the Land Titles Act, and that the mortgage was void under the Planning Act for failing to include abutting lands.

The court found that PPSA registration does not provide notice to a subsequent mortgagee of real property, and the plaintiff failed to establish ownership of the abutting lands.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the moving defendants.

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application to reopen a mediated settlement with her former landlord.

She argued the Board Member was biased, denied her an adjournment, and improperly excluded evidence of coercion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, no procedural unfairness in denying the adjournment, and that the Board reasonably excluded evidence of coercion that did not relate to the mediation itself.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge provided insufficient reasons regarding his recklessness as to consent.

The trial judge had relied on a text message exchange to corroborate the complainant's evidence of non-consent and to establish the appellant's recklessness.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the functional approach to reasons and found the trial judge adequately explained the logical connection between the evidence and the verdict.

The appeal was dismissed.

The father brought a motion for equal time sharing of the children and the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.

The mother brought a cross-motion for the appointment of a social worker to conduct a parenting assessment under s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court granted the father's request for week-about access, finding both parents capable and that a specified schedule would lessen conflict.

The court dismissed the motion for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home to maintain stability for the children pending trial.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, ordering a s. 30 parenting assessment with costs shared equally.

The accused brought pretrial applications alleging violations of his rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the section 10 breaches, resulting in the exclusion of the accused's statements to police.

On the section 8 application, the accused argued that police unlawfully entered and searched his motel room without a warrant, leading to the discovery of a sawed-off shotgun.

The court found that the accused had provided valid implied consent for the police to enter the room to investigate a reported gunshot and broken window.

The section 8 application was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's class action on summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendants sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the Class Proceedings Fund argued for a 30% reduction on the basis that the litigation was brought in the public interest.

The court rejected both arguments, finding that the defendants' discounted fee arrangement and the breach of trust pleading did not justify an elevated costs scale, and that the pension calculation dispute was a private financial matter rather than public interest litigation.

The court exercised its discretion to award the defendants partial indemnity costs fixed at $200,000 for fees plus disbursements.

On a summary conviction appeal from an assault conviction, the appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapplied the reasonable doubt standard in assessing credibility.

The appeal court rejected the unreasonable verdict ground, holding that the alleged inconsistencies, intoxication concerns, and absence of corroboration did not render the conviction unreasonable.

However, the court held that the trial judge's reasons treated the case as a credibility contest and failed to address whether the defence evidence, even if disbelieved, nonetheless raised a reasonable doubt under the W.(D.) framework.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the only count under appeal.

The three accused were charged with importing cocaine after returning from a vacation in Jamaica.

Border Services Officers found approximately half a kilo of cocaine hidden inside cocoa powder cans in each of their checked suitcases.

The accused immediately disavowed knowledge of the drugs, claiming they were planted by unknown persons.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that 'Occam's Razor' proved guilt and found that the accused's immediate disavowals and testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding their knowledge of the drugs.

All three accused were found not guilty.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add causes of action for battery and sexual assault, and sought a publication ban to protect their identities.

The defendant police officer opposed the timing of the amendment, arguing his outstanding summary judgment motion should be heard first, and sought costs thrown away.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend immediately, finding no non-compensable prejudice, and ordered a publication ban due to the sexual nature of the allegations.

The court also awarded the defendant $2,000 in costs thrown away for the need to redraft his pleadings.

The parties separated after a 27-year marriage during which the applicant primarily raised their children and assisted in building the respondent's financial advising business.

The applicant, now disabled by fibromyalgia, sought spousal support and equalization of net family property.

The court ordered spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, retroactive to the date of separation, finding the applicant's delay in seeking support was reasonably explained by her health and financial circumstances.

For equalization, the court accepted the applicant's expert valuation of the respondent's business, which included significant value for the goodwill in his book of business, and ordered an equalization payment of $278,316.85.

The accused was found guilty of firearm, ammunition, and drug charges, as well as breaching court orders, following a high-risk police takedown.

The accused was in possession of a loaded restricted firearm while evading police on an outstanding attempted murder warrant and while subject to weapons prohibitions.

The court sentenced the accused to a global term of four years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for illegal handgun possession.