Superior Court of Justice

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for his role in a fatal shooting.

The court found that the offender was aware of the presence of a firearm and was a party to the offence under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

After weighing aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, against mitigating factors, such as harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and rehabilitative potential, the court determined an appropriate sentence of 113.5 months.

After applying credit for pre-sentence custody, the offender was sentenced to 58 months' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for domestic assault, arguing the trial judge made fundamental errors in assessing credibility.

Specifically, the appellant alleged the trial judge improperly used prior discreditable conduct evidence, used the complainant's lack of exaggeration to buttress her credibility, and relied on ungrounded common sense assumptions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were grounded in the evidence and entitled to deference.

The court emphasized that appellate courts should not dissect trial reasons in a search for technical errors.

The plaintiff, a university instructor, brought a motion for default judgment in a defamation action against a former friend who posted false and malicious tweets accusing her of being a sexual predator.

The defendant did not defend the action.

The court found the tweets were highly defamatory, widely published, and motivated by malice.

The court awarded $75,000 in general and aggravated damages, $10,000 in punitive damages, and ordered a permanent injunction and a 60-day retraction on the defendant's Twitter account.

The offenders, two youthful first-time offenders, were convicted of firearm offences after acquiring a handgun while collecting drug debts.

One offender also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving after a brief police chase.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of 2.5 to 3 years.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter and struck it down.

Applying the restraint principle and noting the offenders' strong rehabilitative prospects and community support, the court imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day for both offenders.

Following a trial with divided success, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in setting aside the marriage contract and obtaining equalization and spousal support, while the respondent was successful in obtaining a finding of parental alienation and limiting spousal support.

The court found the applicant's alienating conduct amounted to bad faith under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules.

Balancing the divided success, the applicant's bad faith, and the respondent's excessive costs claims, the court ordered both parties to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff brought an action for wrongful dismissal, human rights damages, and intentional infliction of mental suffering against his employer and its principal, as well as against a related corporation, claiming they were common employers.

The related corporation brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that this was not one of the rare cases where partial summary judgment is appropriate, as the claims against the moving party were factually intertwined with the claims against the other defendants, creating a material risk of inconsistent findings.

The respondent mother brought a motion for an interim order granting her sole decision-making responsibility and sole discretion over the applicant father's parenting time, citing his ongoing alcohol addiction.

The father opposed the motion, seeking to reinstate supervised parenting time after the mother withheld access for ten months.

The court dismissed the mother's request for sole discretion, finding no material change in circumstances, and ordered supervised in-person and virtual parenting time for the father, along with reunification therapy.

The court maintained joint decision-making, granted a time-limited police enforcement clause, and ordered the father to pay child support arrears based on his actual income.

The applicant sought costs of $15,552.88 following a successful motion regarding parenting time and the sale of the home.

The respondent argued costs should be in the cause.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, though not fully successful, and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

The court fixed the applicant's costs at $10,000, inclusive of costs thrown away from a prior adjournment, with payment deferred until the final determination of the case due to income disparity and the holding of house sale proceeds in trust.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court found the accused guilty of fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime arising from a multi-year scheme targeting Canada Post.

The evidence showed that fictitious businesses across Canada were created to obtain postal products on credit, have them shipped to virtual mailbox locations in southwestern Ontario, and then resell stamps at a discount.

Applying the fraud elements from Theroux and the circumstantial evidence approach in Villaroman, the court held that computer records, mailbox evidence, surveillance, IP data, invoices, and related documents proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused orchestrated the scheme and never intended to pay.

The court accepted that Canada Post was deprived of $234,763.31 and rejected the defence theory of legitimate business activity.

The offender pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm with intent and possessing a firearm while prohibited, offences carrying a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a five-year global sentence but disagreed on the allocation of pre-sentence custody.

The court held that enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit), including frequent lockdowns and the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Black inmates, can be applied even when a mandatory minimum sentence is imposed.

The court credited the offender with standard 1.5:1 Summers credit plus an additional six months for harsh conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of two years less a day to be served in a provincial reformatory.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery in an action for malicious prosecution and negligence arising from a failed business loan application and subsequent fraud charges.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding the estate trustee's previous business dealings, prior fraud conviction, and the factual basis for the malicious prosecution claim.

The court also ordered the defendants to answer specific questions regarding the information provided to the RCMP, while upholding refusals for questions that were argumentative, irrelevant, or already answered.

The defendants were largely successful on the motion.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a cottage property.

The defendants failed to close the transaction, arguing the agreement was void due to unfulfilled conditions regarding severance under the Planning Act and uncertainty over rights of way.

The court found the agreement valid and binding, noting the defendants could not rely on their own failure to obtain the necessary severances to terminate the contract.

Finding the property uniquely suited to the plaintiffs' needs, the court granted summary judgment and ordered specific performance.

The accused was tried for two counts of sexual assault and one count of attempting to choke the complainant.

The case turned on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, both of whom had consumed significant amounts of alcohol during the weekend in question.

Applying the W.(D). framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence but found that the complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies and memory gaps regarding core events.

Consequently, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of all charges.

The plaintiff acted as an agent in Korea for the defendant.

After their relationship deteriorated, the parties signed a Payment Agreement acknowledging outstanding commissions owed to the plaintiff.

The defendant partially paid but then ceased payments.

The plaintiff sued for the remaining balance.

The court found the Payment Agreement to be a binding contract and awarded the plaintiff USD $232,330.44.

The defendant's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of damages.

The court limited pre-judgment interest to three years due to the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The applicants and respondent owned a lakefront property as tenants in common, with the applicants using their dwelling recreationally and the respondent using hers as a principal residence.

The applicants sought to sell their interest but alleged the respondent interfered with prospective purchasers.

The applicants brought an application under the Partition Act for the sale of the entire property.

The court found no malicious or vexatious intent by the applicants and concluded that the respondent would not suffer objective hardship amounting to oppression if the property were sold.

The application for the sale of the property was granted, with a reference directed for the conduct of the sale.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) analysis, misapprehended his evidence, and erred in assessing the complainant's reliability given her intoxication and memory gaps.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the credibility assessment principles, correctly understood the appellant's evidence as untruthful rather than a mistaken belief, and appropriately evaluated the complainant's reliability against the totality of the evidence.

The accused, an OPP officer, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for showing preferential treatment to a specific tow truck operator when dispatching tows for stunt driving impounds.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the accused sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized the need for general deterrence and denunciation given the accused's position of trust and the deliberate nature of the offence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, finding that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest.

Sentencing following convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from a teacher's sexual abuse of a 14-year-old student during after-class meetings.

Applying the principles in s. 718, s. 718.01, and the Supreme Court's direction in Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, the inherently violent nature of sexual offences against children, the complainant's vulnerability, the offender's grooming behaviour, breach of trust, and the lasting psychological harm caused.

The court rejected reliance on pre-Friesen sentencing authorities that minimized non-penetrative abuse and found that a community-based sentence or one-year custodial term would be unfit.

A total sentence of 18 months' imprisonment followed by three years' probation was imposed, together with ancillary protective orders and conditional stays on the remaining counts.

The defendant brought a motion for directions on where and before whom he could bring a bail application.

The Court of Appeal had previously upheld his convictions but overturned his dangerous offender designation, directing a new sentencing hearing before a different judge.

Because no judge had yet been assigned to the new sentencing hearing, the defendant sought clarity on bail jurisdiction.

The Superior Court held that under section 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, since the defendant was currently being tried before 'a court' but no specific judge was conducting the trial, jurisdiction for the bail application rested with the Superior Court of Justice generally until a specific judge was assigned.

The offender was convicted of attempted murder, unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, wearing a disguise with intent, and occupying a vehicle with a firearm after shooting the victim in an apartment parking lot.

The court weighed the extreme gravity of the planned shooting and the offender's prior criminal record involving firearms against his youth, difficult background, and rehabilitative potential.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 125.25 months, which was reduced to 102 months after applying Summers and Duncan credits for pre-sentence custody.