SCJ 2025

The offender, Joshua Drumond, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in relation to the death of Jason Brown.

The court accepted a joint submission on sentencing, noting that while the circumstances of the victim's death were vicious, there were significant triable issues and the guilty plea was highly mitigating.

Justice Conlan sentenced the offender to eight years of imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 2,224 days.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.

The court sentenced Richard Goodland to 3.5 years in the penitentiary for possession of child pornography, following a conviction based on undisputed facts.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the accused’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasizes the harm caused by child pornography, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and Parliament’s direction for increased sentences for offences against children.

Ancillary orders were also imposed, including forfeiture, internet restrictions, SOIRA, DNA order, and a prohibition on contact with persons under 16.

The applicant, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The police arrested the applicant after a foot pursuit following a 911 call about a person with a gun matching his description.

The court found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, or 9, concluding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for possession of a firearm and that the use of force was justified.

The court found breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) due to a delay in informing the applicant of the reasons for his arrest for a firearm and failing to hold off questioning before facilitating his right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff, Texford St. Bernard, sought compensation from the defendant, June Andrews, for alleged unpaid contributions to the construction and improvement of a property at 179 Bullis Road, Brighton, Ontario.

The court found that the claim was largely statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the evidence did not support the plaintiff’s assertion that he was owed money for the work or expenses claimed.

The action was dismissed in its entirety.

The court sentenced Shadrack Oppong-Kyereme for importing 12.2 kilograms of heroin into Canada, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The sentencing reasons review the circumstances of the offence and the offender, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The court considered the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender’s moral responsibility, but found only a modest reduction in culpability.

After reviewing comparable case law, the court imposed a sentence of 15 years, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The court considered whether a $1.2 million advance from the late William Humphries, through Radlett Holdings Inc., to Angela Zheng was a gift or created a resulting trust.

The court found that the funds were not a gift, but rather that Radlett Holdings Inc. retained a 60% beneficial interest in the property purchased by Angela Zheng, based on the intention of the deceased at the time of the advance.

The court relied on the evidence of the lawyer and accountant for the deceased, and found the defendant's evidence not credible.

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following a contested application to pass accounts in the insolvent estate of Christina Georgiou Psoma.

The court reviews the parties’ positions, the applicable legal principles, and the conduct of the litigation, ultimately awarding the applicant, Steve Georgiou, costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $23,000, payable by the objectors, Panayiotios Georgiou and Zevoulla Georgiou, jointly and severally.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the modern approach to costs in estate litigation, the impact of settlement offers, and the role of proportionality and party conduct in determining costs.

The court allowed the Crown's appeal from an acquittal on an "over 80" charge under s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the objective element of the statutory defence in s. 320.14(5).

The trial judge had accepted the respondent's subjective belief that he would not be required to provide a breath sample after a car accident, but did not adequately consider whether that belief was objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The court also dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's findings on state agency and Charter s. 24(2).

The court considered whether to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After reviewing the statement of claim and written submissions, the court found that the claim pleaded an arguable and discernable cause of action and should not be dismissed at this stage.

The court emphasized the robust gatekeeping function of Rule 2.1, but found that the statement of claim was not so devoid of merit as to warrant summary dismissal.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant, M.D., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to lay criminal charges against two police officers following an incident in which M.D. alleged sexual assault during a search at a hospital.

The court considered whether the SIU Director had a duty to lay charges, whether an alternative remedy was available, and whether the merits of the Director’s decision justified mandamus.

The court found no duty owed to the applicant to form reasonable and probable grounds, held that the private prosecution process under section 504 of the Criminal Code was an adequate alternative remedy, and found no evidence of bias or improper motive in the Director’s decision.

The application for mandamus was dismissed.

The court considered whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kimera Fullwood was in possession of a prohibited firearm found in a residence during a drug trafficking investigation.

The court reviewed the law on circumstantial evidence and possession, ultimately finding that the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an alternative inference that another individual, Hasnan Sandhu, brought the firearm into the residence without Fullwood’s knowledge.

Fullwood was acquitted on the firearm charges.

The court considered whether Seedjan Sulaiman Khail, who stabbed his father to death, was not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

The only issue in dispute was whether the accused’s mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong.

After reviewing the psychiatric evidence and the accused’s history, the court found that while Mr. Sulaiman Khail suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the offence, he did not lack the capacity to know that his actions were wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of society.

The court found him guilty of second-degree murder.

The applicant, Charles Frederick Armstrong, challenged the constitutionality of the Township of Russell’s Sign By-Law, which restricted the display of municipal election signs.

The court found that the by-law violated Armstrong’s freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the violation was not justified under section 1.

The court also found that the Township was unjustly enriched by requiring Armstrong to pay $450 for the return of his signs, which had been removed under the unconstitutional by-law.

The court assessed damages for the applicant, Vineet Khanna, arising from the respondents' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for real property.

The court rejected claims for rescission and damages in lieu of specific performance, finding the property was not unique and that the applicant failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court awarded damages based on the difference between the purchase price and the market value at the date of breach, as well as for extension fees, temporary accommodation, and moving/storage expenses, but denied "equitable interest" and limited some claims due to insufficient evidence.

The court considered the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased, Carl Delphin, to his girlfriend, Ruth Anne Villeneuve, in a double homicide prosecution.

The Crown sought to admit these statements as evidence of Delphin’s intention to act as “backup” for Nico Soubliere, who was meeting with the accused.

The court reviewed the state of mind exception and the principled exception to the hearsay rule, ultimately finding that the statements were not sufficiently reliable and were made under circumstances of suspicion.

The application to admit the statements was denied.

The accused, Gregory Beasley, was charged with two counts of first-degree murder.

The defence brought a motion seeking direction to cross-examine the officer-in-charge regarding investigative hearsay about other individuals and organized crime figures who may have had motives to harm the victims.

The defence conceded that this evidence did not meet the strict test for third-party suspect admissibility due to a lack of evidence regarding opportunity.

Justice Lacelle dismissed the motion, holding that the proposed evidence was irrelevant and that its potential prejudice, including distracting the jury and opening the door to the accused's own organized crime links, far outweighed its probative value.

The decision concerns a defence motion to admit hearsay statements made by the deceased, Carl Delphin and Nico Soubliere, to James Brooks, suggesting an intention to rob another drug dealer for Percocets.

The court found the statements admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, holding that the statements were substantively reliable and relevant to the issue of the identity of the shooter.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect, and that the circumstances in which the statements were made supported their reliability.

The plaintiff, Kathleen MacNeill, sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained after ingesting a deliming agent in coffee served at a McDonald’s drive-thru.

The court found that while the incident was unsettling, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff suffered any serious or permanent injury causally related to the incident.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for general, income, and future care damages, awarding only $5,000 for temporary pain and inconvenience.

The decision turned on findings of credibility, causation, and the weight of expert and lay evidence.

The plaintiff, Ari Lesser, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring third party Cogeco Connexion Inc. to disclose basic subscriber information associated with a specific IP address.

The court distinguished between Norwich orders and Rule 30.10 orders, finding that as an Associate Judge, it could not grant equitable relief but could grant the requested order under Rule 30.10.

The court found the information sought was relevant and necessary, and that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case against the unknown defendants.

The motion was granted.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Rasim Kaba and Hassan Talebi for importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to commit those offences.

The court reviews the evidence, including the defendants' backgrounds, their relationship, the importation process, intercepted communications, and the police investigation.

The court finds both defendants' explanations implausible and concludes that the only reasonable inference is that both knew of the opium and conspired to import and traffic it.

Both are found guilty on all counts.