Scott Rogers

This endorsement addresses the costs following a four-day trial where the plaintiff, Infinity Construction Inc., was completely successful, obtaining judgment for over $1.19 million plus interest.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the defendants' deliberate withholding of known owed funds was vexatious and tactical.

The defendants argued for partial indemnity costs, disputing the plaintiff's hours and the applicability of Rule 49.10.

The court found that Rule 49.10 was not engaged as the plaintiff's offer was not made seven days before trial.

While the defendants' conduct in withholding payment came close to reprehensible conduct, it did not meet the high threshold required for substantial indemnity costs in these circumstances.

Exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, the court found the plaintiff's counsel's fees reasonable and awarded the plaintiff $175,000 inclusive of HST on a partial indemnity basis.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with the complainant.

The complainant testified that the sexual activity was initially consensual but she withdrew her consent when it became rough, and the accused did not stop.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility, addressing inconsistencies, delayed disclosure, and forensic DNA evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence, finding that she communicated her withdrawal of consent and the accused continued the sexual activity.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his guilty pleas to three counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon, and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused had engaged in a pattern of predatory behaviour targeting women in apartment buildings, including physical assaults and an incident involving a pellet gun.

The defence conceded the accused met the criteria for long-term offender designation but opposed the dangerous offender designation.

The court found that while the accused presented a serious clinical challenge with paraphilic coercive disorder and schizophrenia, he did not pose a "tremendous future risk" as required for dangerous offender designation.

The court designated the accused as a long-term offender, imposed a two-year custodial sentence, and ordered a 10-year long-term supervision order.

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiffs challenged the admissibility of evidence from a defendant cardiologist, Dr. Wong, concerning average wait times for stress tests.

Dr. Wong's testimony was based on patient records and a summary chart prepared by his office staff.

The plaintiffs argued this constituted inadmissible hearsay, as Dr. Wong did not personally verify all the underlying data.

The court ruled that Dr. Wong's evidence was admissible in its entirety.

It found that the patient records contained Dr. Wong's first-hand knowledge and served to refresh his memory, and the chart was a summary of this information.

Any weaknesses or limitations in the process of compiling the data were deemed to affect the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 after being found unconscious in her motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

Following arrest and booking, she was subjected to a strip search (level 3 search) after a small amount of marijuana was discovered in her purse.

The accused challenged the strip search as a violation of her Charter rights under sections 7 and 8.

The court found that the officer-in-charge lacked reasonable and probable grounds to order the strip search, as he failed to conduct an individualized assessment of the detainee's circumstances as required by law.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

Peter Brooks was found guilty of second-degree murder.

This decision concerns his sentencing, specifically the period of parole ineligibility.

The court considered the brutal nature of the attack, the vulnerability of the victims, and the planned nature of the offence as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included Brooks' progressive neurocognitive disorder (dementia) and lack of prior criminal record.

Both Crown and defence jointly submitted for the minimum parole ineligibility period of 10 years.

The court accepted this, emphasizing public protection and denunciation while acknowledging the limited impact of rehabilitation and specific deterrence due to the offender's cognitive impairment.

This is a voir dire ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Anthony Alas, who was charged with second-degree murder.

The primary issue was whether the statements were the product of an atmosphere of oppression, specifically due to the police's alleged failure to provide the accused with stomach medication.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, concluding that the accused's will was not overborne by police conduct or the circumstances.

The court considered the accused's mental state, the absence of threats or inducements (including any suggestion regarding his partner's potential arrest), and the presence of oppressive circumstances.

Despite some concerns about how the accused's medical needs were handled, the court determined that the overall police conduct was polite and accommodating, and the interview was calm and non-confrontational.

M.N., suffering from terminal cancer with a prognosis of less than six months, sought a court order declaring that she met the criteria for a physician-assisted death under the constitutional exemption granted in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 SCC 4.

She also sought a declaration that her physician-assisted death would not require physicians to notify the coroner under the Coroners Act.

The court found M.N. to be a competent adult with a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring and intolerable suffering, and that she clearly consented to the termination of her life.

The application was granted, allowing M.N. to proceed with physician-assisted death and exempting involved healthcare providers from certain Criminal Code provisions and coroner notification requirements.

Before the commencement of a sexual assault trial, the Crown sought a ruling on the qualifications of a proposed Telugu interpreter for the complainant.

The interpreter was multilingual but not accredited or conditionally accredited in Telugu and could not read or write the language.

Following a voir dire, the court considered the standards for interpreter qualification under s. 14 of the Charter and relevant jurisprudence requiring continuous, precise, impartial, competent, and contemporaneous interpretation.

The court held that while accreditation is not constitutionally required, there must be an independent and objective basis to establish competency.

In the absence of such evidence, the proposed interpreter was found not properly qualified.