SCJ 2022

The offender, an 18-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of arson after participating in the deliberate burning of a stolen pickup truck using gasoline in a dense residential complex.

The Crown sought a net sentence of nine months' custody, while the defence sought time served or a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for serious arson offences, declining a conditional sentence.

The offender was sentenced to seven months' net custody followed by two years of probation.

The moving party mother brought a motion to change seeking to impose conditions on the responding party father's parenting time with their seven-year-old son, who was recently diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The court found a material change in circumstances and ordered a temporary stay of the existing parenting order, replacing it with a gradual reintegration plan facilitated by the child's behavioural therapist.

The mother's requests for sole decision-making authority and to change the child's surname were deferred and dismissed, respectively.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, applied for a stay of proceedings or an increase in juror remuneration, arguing that the current payment framework under the Administration of Justice Act breaches his ss. 11(d) and 11(f) Charter rights by excluding lower-income individuals and creating an unrepresentative jury.

The court dismissed the application, finding that jury representativeness depends on the random selection of the jury roll, not diversity, and that the applicant failed to provide evidence that financial hardship disproportionately affects lower-paid workers or that increased remuneration would resolve the issue.

The applicant wife brought a motion to dismiss the respondent husband's Motion to Change due to his failure to pay over $800,000 in support arrears, a $100,000 precondition payment, and previous costs.

The husband had made no voluntary support payments since 2007 and failed to provide meaningful financial disclosure.

The court found the husband's non-compliance to be extensive, persistent, and willful.

The court ordered that the husband's pleadings be struck in 61 days unless he pays the $100,000 precondition, outstanding costs, and current costs of $17,000, and provides the required financial disclosure.

The offender, an aviation mechanic, was convicted of attempting to import cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime after participating in a police sting operation.

He used his airport security clearance to retrieve a package he believed contained one kilogram of cocaine from an airplane panel.

The court found his moral culpability was significantly higher than a mere courier due to his breach of trust and planning.

He was sentenced to a net term of 4 years and 11 months in custody.

During a sexual assault trial, the court held a ruling on whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent should be left with the jury.

The alleged assault occurred in a dark room where multiple people were sleeping after consuming alcohol.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated sexual contact, while the complainant testified she awoke to being assaulted and did not consent.

Applying the air of reality test, the court found that the accused's evidence, if assumed true, put the defence in play.

The court ruled the defence would be left with the jury, as it was for the jury to assess whether the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued that the defendants' costs were excessive and that their conduct warranted a denial of costs.

The court found that while the plaintiff's motion was ill-conceived, its conduct was not reprehensible enough to justify elevated costs.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $50,995.12.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of section 577(a) of the Criminal Code, which allows the Crown to prefer a direct indictment.

The applicant argued that the provision violates section 7 of the Charter by permitting arbitrary exercise of Crown discretion without requiring reasons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that binding precedent establishes the constitutionality of direct indictments and that prosecutorial discretion remains subject to review for abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for environmental contamination migrating from the defendants' property onto the plaintiff's adjacent lands.

The court found that chlorinated solvents (TCE) originated from the defendants' property and flowed via groundwater onto the plaintiff's lands.

The court held the defendants liable in nuisance, negligence, and trespass.

The court also pierced the corporate veil, finding the individual defendant jointly and severally liable due to his egregious conduct and failure to remediate the property despite promises to do so.

The court ordered the defendants to remediate their property and awarded damages of $1,809,908.80, with a further $2,800,000 payable if remediation is not completed on schedule.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and breaching a recognizance after a five-year-old child was found severely beaten in a wooded area.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's motive stemming from a deteriorating relationship with the child's mother, his opportunity to commit the crime, pattern bruising on the child matching the accused's shoes, and the child's DNA found under the accused's fingernails.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused committed the assault.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The respondent brought a motion to change to terminate his spousal support obligations following his retirement.

The applicant opposed the termination, arguing support was intended for their joint lives, and sought a lump sum to cover her tax liabilities from failing to declare past support as income.

The court found the respondent's retirement constituted a material change in circumstances as explicitly contemplated in the original consent order.

Concluding that the applicant had sufficient time to achieve self-sufficiency and that her tax liabilities were her own responsibility, the court terminated spousal support retroactively to December 31, 2016, and dismissed the applicant's claims.

The plaintiff, a former partner in a law firm with the defendants, brought an action for a declaration of partnership dissolution, an accounting, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion of shares.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the plaintiff's departure from the partnership, precluding further adjustments or liability for a Vancouver office lease.

However, the court found the defendants liable for conversion of the plaintiff's personal shares held as security, awarding $65,226.15 in damages.

The court also awarded $50,000 in damages for breach of fiduciary duty due to the defendants' failure to disclose partnership draws taken shortly before the plaintiff's departure, though it rejected claims that this failure caused the plaintiff's subsequent significant tax liabilities.

Following trial convictions for possession and accessing child pornography, the court sentenced the offender for possessing a large, organized, and highly depraved collection of child sexual abuse material obtained through peer-to-peer networks.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence are the dominant sentencing objectives for child pornography offences, treated pre-Friesen ranges with caution, and rejected the submission that the offending resulted from reckless downloading of adult pornography.

A conditional sentence was found theoretically available but inappropriate absent exceptional circumstances.

The accessing conviction was conditionally stayed under Kienapple, and a net 25-month penitentiary sentence was imposed after modest credit for lengthy bail conditions, together with DNA, lifetime SOIRA, forfeiture, and a 10-year s. 161 order.

The plaintiff, a dental hygienist, resigned and sued her former employer for constructive dismissal after her hours were reduced.

The defendant counterclaimed for breach of non-competition and non-solicitation clauses.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court dismissed both the action and the counterclaim.

The court found the termination, non-competition, and non-solicitation clauses in the employment contract were unenforceable.

However, the court also found the plaintiff was not constructively dismissed, as the reduction in hours merely reverted her schedule to its historical norm and did not breach an essential term of the contract.

The offenders, who worked as cleaners in a medical office, were convicted of forging prescriptions for opioids and possessing fentanyl and oxycodone.

Both offenders suffered from severe opioid addictions.

The Crown sought custodial sentences of 9 to 12 months, while the defence sought conditional discharges.

The court declined to grant conditional discharges, finding them contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the offences and lack of rehabilitation plans.

However, considering the significant delay of over five years and the offenders' circumstances, the court imposed 12-month conditional sentences to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The applicants subscribed for flow-through shares in mining companies, which renounced Canadian exploration expenses to them.

The CRA later reassessed the companies and the applicants, disallowing the expenses.

The applicants sought immediate indemnification from the respondent under their subscription agreements for the taxes paid under the reassessments.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the indemnities were not payable until the amount of taxes was 'definitively determined' or 'determined', which had not yet occurred as the respondent's appeal of the CRA reassessment was still pending.

The 18-year-old Indigenous offender was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder after shooting his father and best friend while intoxicated.

The court accepted a joint submission for a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 18 years for the murders, and a concurrent 10-year sentence for the attempted murder.

The court heavily weighed Gladue factors, the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and expressions of remorse, balancing them against the devastating impact on the remote First Nation community.

The plaintiff, a prominent human rights lawyer, was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle while riding her bicycle.

The defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act and was found wholly liable.

The court accepted expert medical evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and chronic migraines, which effectively ended her legal career.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important function, and awarded substantial damages including $250,000 in general damages, past and future income loss, and future care costs.

The father sought costs following a contempt motion and competing motions regarding parenting time.

Although the court declined to find the mother in contempt, it found she had breached prior orders and reinstituted the status quo of week-about parenting time.

The court determined the father was the more successful party and awarded him costs fixed at $15,000, noting the mother's failure to comply with court orders and the father's reasonable offer to settle.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The incident occurred after the appellant, the complainant, and her partner returned to a residence after drinking.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony as illogical and accepted the complainant's evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) principles, assessing credibility, and refusing an adjournment for a Seaboyer application.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and there were no errors of law.