Shane Kenneth Kelly

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, 1 Royal Gate Village Properties Ltd., failed to provide a reasonable explanation for an almost eight-year delay in prosecuting its claim against CCI Group Inc. regarding an allegedly deficient property condition assessment.

The court found that explanations based on alleged bankruptcy representations, the COVID-19 pandemic, and financial constraints were not sufficient.

The court also found that the defendant would suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded, including the death of key witnesses, faded memories, and the inability to inspect the property due to remedial work.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The Plaintiff brought an urgent motion for the judge's recusal based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, alleging predisposition against the Plaintiff and/or her counsel.

This motion followed a mistrial declared due to counsel's conduct (displaying an image of Charles Manson to the jury while a witness testified).

The Plaintiff also sought to have the matter remitted for a new trial before a new judge, which the court noted was superfluous as it was already precluded from hearing the new trial.

The court addressed the recusal motion specifically concerning the outstanding costs issue from the aborted proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no substantial and serious grounds to support an allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias, and awarded costs to the Defendant on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the motion was brought with the sole purpose of avoiding a costs decision.

A.M. was charged with sexual assault, mischief, assault, and threatening.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The trial centered on the credibility of the complainant (K.J.) and the accused (A.M.).

The court found A.M.'s testimony to be credible and logical, corroborated in part by another witness (C.F.).

K.J.'s testimony, however, was found to have serious difficulties, including repeated claims of inability to recall details, significant inconsistencies between her testimony and prior statements, and embellishments.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and A.M. was found not guilty of all charges.

The accused, Andy Metatawabin, was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and threatening death after stabbing another patient in a hospital.

The trial proceeded in two stages: identity and criminal responsibility.

The court found the accused was the assailant and guilty of aggravated assault and weapon possession, but not guilty of attempted murder or threatening due to reasonable doubt regarding intent and the alleged threat.

In the second stage, the court assessed whether the accused was Not Criminally Responsible by Reason of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) due to schizophrenia.

Weighing expert psychiatric evidence, the court accepted the defence psychiatrist's opinion that the accused was in a psychotic state at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were morally or legally wrong.

Consequently, the accused was found NCRMD on the aggravated assault and weapon possession charges and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

The accused was charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his 82-year-old mother and assault causing bodily harm in relation to his aunt.

During an argument at the front door of the family home, the accused pushed his aunt, which caused her to fall into his mother, resulting in his mother falling down concrete stairs.

His mother died in hospital several days later.

The Crown initially pursued a manslaughter charge based on transferred intent but later withdrew this charge after the pathologist's testimony.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his aunt and unlawfully causing bodily harm against his mother, rejecting defences of consensual fight, self-defence, and defence of property.

The applicant, James Michael Demers, sought a declaration that a fabric-covered framed structure (boathouse) on his neighbours' property required a building permit from the Township of Killaloe-Hagarty-Richards.

The Township argued the structure was a "tent" exempt from permit requirements and that Demers' application was time-barred as an unappealed CBO decision.

The court found that the Chief Building Official (CBO) had not issued a formal written decision, thus Demers' application was not time-barred.

The court further determined, based on photographic evidence and definitions in the Building Code Act and municipal by-laws, that the structure was a multi-storey, permanent "building" and not a temporary "tent," therefore requiring a building permit.

The application for declaratory relief was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis due to the importance of the issue and the Township's conduct in raising a late limitation period defence.

An Indigenous offender pleaded guilty to heroin trafficking offences and possession of proceeds of crime.

The sentencing proceeded through a sentencing circle, a restorative justice process involving the offender's family, community members, and an Elder.

The offender had completed residential rehabilitation treatment and demonstrated significant personal transformation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence on trafficking counts with concurrent probation, one day custody on possession for purpose of trafficking (credited for time served), and a concurrent twelve-month conditional sentence on the proceeds count.

The decision emphasizes restorative justice principles, the impact of intergenerational trauma on Indigenous offenders, and the connection between remorse and rehabilitation.

An Aboriginal offender with a lengthy history of property crimes and breaches of court orders was sentenced in the Gladue court.

The offender had demonstrated a pattern of minor criminality spanning several months, committing thefts from businesses and repeatedly breaching probation and bail conditions.

Despite previous sentences including jail time, probation, and conditional sentences, the offender showed no signs of rehabilitation or deterrence.

The court imposed a 14-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, emphasizing the application of Gladue principles while balancing public protection and the need for accountability.

The offender subsequently breached the conditional sentence but later voluntarily requested incarceration to access mental health treatment at a specialized facility.