Sean F. Dunphy

The moving parties sought recovery of amounts paid under protest to discharge mortgages after a failed maturity repayment and threatened receivership enforcement.

The court held that the lender's purported unilateral automatic renewal was ineffective because essential implied terms required timely decision and communication before renewal obligations fell due, failing which the renewal mechanism operated as an impermissible penalty under s. 8(1) of the Interest Act.

Renewal-related fees and associated interest exacted as a discharge condition were therefore recoverable.

The lender's alternative claim for three months' interest under s. 17 of the Mortgages Act was rejected because the payments arose in the context of enforcement and no surviving stand-alone claim existed after discharge.

Costs entitlement for the second segment was awarded to the moving parties, with scale and quantum left for later determination.

Following a jury trial, the sentencing court addressed convictions for human trafficking and procuring a complainant under 18, with acquittals on sexual interference and assault-with-a-weapon counts.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence required substantial penitentiary terms given the complainant's youth, vulnerability, coercive exploitation, and enduring harm, while also weighing mitigation including limited or absent records and subordinate roles in a joint enterprise.

The court rejected a 12-year Crown position and a conditional-sentence defence position, finding both inconsistent with proportionality and parity.

The court imposed six-year custodial sentences on each offender, less pre-sentence custody credit, and granted ancillary non-communication, DNA, weapons prohibition, and 20-year SOIRA orders, while declining requested s. 161 orders.

On a CCAA motion, the moving parties sought approval of a reverse vesting transaction and ancillary relief following a court-approved SISP with a stalking horse credit bid.

The court applied the s. 36(3) criteria and found the process was transparent, adequately marketed, monitor-supervised, and fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The court accepted the monitor’s evidence that a going-concern outcome would produce materially better stakeholder outcomes than liquidation and would preserve enterprise value while reducing restructuring costs.

Applying the Harte Gold framework, the court held the reverse vesting structure was necessary, economically superior to viable alternatives, non-prejudicial to stakeholders relative to alternatives, and reflective of fair value for preserved intangibles.

The motion was granted and both the Reverse Vesting Order and Ancillary Order were approved.

This is an appeal from a conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL.

The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal alleging breaches of Charter rights, including failures to provide adequate notice of the right to counsel, failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice, and failure to preserve evidence.

The trial judge found certain breaches but declined to exclude the breath sample evidence or stay proceedings.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were open to him and his legal analysis was sound.

This is a summary conviction appeal from Jason Robertson’s conviction for refusal to provide a breath sample under s. 320.15 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the demand for a breath sample was not made “immediately” as required, and that unusual circumstances did not excuse any delay.

The court found that the demand was made promptly after ensuring the appellant’s health and safety following a serious accident, and that any delay was justified by the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted by the Ontario Court of Justice on the basis of delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court found that the total delay was well within the Jordan ceiling and that the defence had not taken meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings.

The trial judge below erred in focusing on police delay in video disclosure and in treating the absence of a fully unredacted video as a bar to progress.

The appeal was allowed, the stay was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial scheduling.

The decision addresses a defence Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained during a search incident to arrest.

The court found that the arrest of Mr. Ibrahim under a valid and subsisting warrant was lawful, and the subsequent search of his person and satchel did not violate his rights under section 8 of the Charter.

While there was a brief breach of Mr. Ibrahim’s section 10(b) right to counsel, the court held that the breach was minor and did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered whether the Receiver could disclaim an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit, where the purchaser (Berry) claimed entitlement to specific performance and an equitable interest in the unit.

The Receiver, supported by the senior secured creditor, sought to maximize recovery for creditors.

The court found that Berry had not paid the full purchase price, that the supplementary and "as is, where is" agreements were not enforceable, and that the equities did not support a preference for Berry over other creditors.

The Receiver was authorized to disclaim the agreements.

The court sentenced William Gallerno for aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.

The unprovoked attack caused significant injuries to the victim, Ms. Assenza.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the severity and randomness of the assault and Gallerno’s criminal history, as well as mitigating factors including his Indigenous heritage, addiction, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of one year and six months, after credit for pre-sentence custody, and recommended placement in a treatment facility.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons ban, DNA order, and a non-contact order with the victim and her family.

This is an appeal by the Crown from a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice staying proceedings for breach of the respondent’s rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court finds that the delay was caused by an exceptional circumstance—an erroneous ruling by the initial trial judge on a third-party records application, which led to a successful certiorari application by the affected third party.

The Court holds that the Crown took all reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the delay and that the lower court erred in attributing the delay to the Crown.

The appeal is granted, the stay is vacated, and the matter is remitted for trial.

This decision concerns two related shareholder applications under section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act involving SpassMed Inc. and its affiliates.

The court reviews the procedural history, including consolidation of the applications, amendments to the relief sought, and the appointment of an interim monitor.

Due to significant disputes of fact and credibility, the court orders that the consolidated application be converted to an action to allow for a full trial process.

The defendants sought to remove Stikeman Elliott LLP as counsel for the plaintiffs and to require destruction of documents containing their solicitor-client privileged information, alleging improper handling of privileged communications.

The court found that the privilege in the relevant emails was jointly held by both the sellers and the companies in the Ellis Group, and that the amalgamated company (Ellis Packaging Limited) continued to hold the privilege after the share purchase.

The motion was dismissed.

The court sentenced Jason Curnew for sexual assault against a contract employee, Ms. AS, whom he supervised.

The decision details the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles, including the totality principle.

The court imposed a five-year consecutive penitentiary sentence, with mandatory ancillary orders, after considering the impact on the victim, the abuse of authority, and the offender’s prior convictions.

The accused, William Gallerno, was tried for aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.

The main issue was identification, as the victim, Ms. Assenza, could not identify her assailant.

The court considered the authenticity and chain of custody of a surveillance video showing the assault, as well as corroborating evidence from police, the victim’s husband, and subsequent police interactions with Mr. Gallerno.

Despite gaps in the chain of custody and the victim’s inability to identify the accused, the court found the video authentic and the identification evidence overwhelming, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Gallerno was the assailant.

A finding of guilt was entered.

Jermaine Watson was sentenced following his conviction by a jury for kidnapping.

The court detailed the circumstances of the sophisticated, meticulously planned offence, where Watson acted as a principal lieutenant in the abduction and prolonged, inhumane confinement of the victim for ransom.

The decision considered aggravating factors such as the home invasion, high degree of planning, Watson's central role and greed, and the use of restraints.

Mitigating factors were minimal, though Watson's severe and deteriorating health was considered as a collateral consequence impacting the harshness of incarceration.

The court applied sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, and granted pre-sentence custody credit.

Watson was sentenced to 15 years, less 4 years and 46 days of pre-sentence credit.

Prajaphan Sivashothy was found guilty by a jury of possession for the purpose of trafficking 55.78 grams of fentanyl.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the deadly nature and quantity of fentanyl and the high moral culpability involved in trafficking such a substance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and positive rehabilitation prospects, tempered by a lack of insight into his actions.

The Crown sought a 6.5-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was inadequate given the gravity of the offence and the strong need for denunciation and deterrence, imposing a sentence of 5 years in prison, a mandatory DNA order, and a 10-year s. 109 prohibition.

The request to waive the victim surcharge was denied.

The applicant, Stephane Gagnon, brought two applications seeking a stay of proceedings: one alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time, and another alleging abuse of process related to his return to Canada from Indonesia (argued as a "disguised extradition") and alleged misrepresentations at his bail hearing.

The court dismissed the s. 11(b) application, finding the delay was "Defence Delay" due to Gagnon being a fugitive.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process application, concluding there was no "disguised extradition" as Indonesia acted lawfully and Canada only provided logistical support, and that the Crown's statements at the bail hearing were not misleading.

The court found no breach of the applicant's s. 7 Charter rights and that a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The Crown brought an urgent application for certiorari and mandamus to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision to strike a bail hearing under s. 515(6) of the Criminal Code.

The Justice of the Peace struck the hearing after the proposed surety made a profane remark and then lied about it, deeming it unfair to the accused.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace lacked jurisdiction to strike the proceeding, as the witness's conduct, while unexpected, did not impair the accused's right to a fair hearing or engage principles of fundamental justice.

The court emphasized that a bail hearing is not subject to a "do-over" simply because a release plan falters.

The application was granted, quashing the decision and ordering the bail hearing to be completed.