Sophie Baker

The three accused were charged with kidnapping, assault, and uttering threats against the complainant, who was suspected of having information about a high-profile missing person case.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the complainant, who was struggling with severe drug addiction at the time of the events.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies, illogical claims, and memory gaps, rendering her not credible.

As the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, all three accused were acquitted.

The applicant, Chad Rolling, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was breached.

The court found that, after deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay did not exceed the 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered whether, at a case conference, an associate judge has jurisdiction to determine if the plaintiff may examine a third party in the main action under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought to examine Andrew Clark, a third party, but the associate judge found that such a determination would constitute interlocutory relief, which is beyond the jurisdiction of an associate judge at a case conference.

The request was denied, and the plaintiff was directed to bring a motion if it wished to pursue the matter.

This decision addresses cross-applications between two groups of real estate investors, led by David Civiero and Grant Alexander Hood, regarding the winding up or buy-sell/shotgun disposition of their jointly held corporations.

The court grants leave to add parties, converts the applications to actions, and orders transfer and consolidation with a related Toronto action, finding that the complexity and credibility issues require a full trial.

This decision addresses cross-motions by the plaintiffs (Hood) and defendants (Civiero) to compel answers to refused questions during examinations for discovery in a dispute over joint venture real estate projects.

The court ruled on the relevance and proportionality of various categories of questions, including those related to income, financial documents, potential witnesses, and the nature of agreements.

Key issues included the disclosure of personal expenses run through a joint company, the production of deleted text messages, and the privilege associated with the payment of legal fees.

The court also addressed requests for further discovery time, granting limited additional time to both parties with specific conditions.

The Crown applied to introduce evidence of other sexual activity and discreditable conduct by the accused in a sexual assault trial.

The court ruled on the admissibility of this evidence, applying the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect.

The court permitted general contextual questions about the relationship and evidence of the accused's controlling behavior regarding the complainant's clothing.

However, it excluded evidence of other "unusual" sexual activity, pressured sexual activity, general use of sex toys, general alcohol consumption, and the accused's mental illness, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value or that they engaged in prohibited "twin myths" or propensity reasoning.

The plaintiffs sold their business, Tracks & Wheels Equipment Brokers Inc., to the defendants.

Disputes arose regarding options to purchase the lands on which the business operated, post-closing adjustments, and the conduct of the parties' shared accountant.

The court found that the accountant breached professional and contractual duties by acting in a conflict of interest.

The court also held that the defendants' counterclaim for post-closing adjustments was not time-barred.

Specific performance was granted to the defendants for the optioned lands, subject to certain severance conditions.

The plaintiffs sued their former lawyer and his law firm for professional negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the sale of their business.

The plaintiffs alleged the lawyer failed to properly advise them on the definitions and objection provisions in the share purchase agreement, resulting in a lower purchase price.

The court found that the action was not statute-barred but dismissed the claims on the merits.

The court held that the lawyer met the standard of care by explicitly advising the sophisticated plaintiff to obtain independent accounting advice on the business terms, which the plaintiff failed to do.

The court also found no breach of contract or fiduciary duty, and concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their damages or causation.

The two offenders were convicted of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old unconscious victim.

The assault involved digital penetration by one offender while the other encouraged and facilitated the act.

The court rejected the argument that the absence of penile penetration lessened the gravity of the offence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced both first-time offenders to 16 months in custody followed by two years of probation, along with a 20-year SOIRA order and a weapons prohibition.

Sentencing decision following convictions for sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, and assault arising from a long-term pattern of exploitation and abuse that began when the complainant was a teenage athlete and the offender was her coach.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as predominant, relying on the modern sentencing approach for sexual offences against children and recognizing the aggravating features of breach of trust, exploitation, domestic violence, humiliation, and lasting psychological harm.

The court also considered mitigating factors including the offender's youth at the time of the sexual assault, lengthy law-abiding period, harsh extrajudicial consequences, and extended bail period.

A global custodial sentence of 45 months was imposed, together with mandatory and ancillary orders.

The accused was charged on a five-count indictment with three allegations of sexual assault, a charge of assault causing bodily harm, and another charge of simple assault against the complainant, his former track athlete and later wife.

The court applied the W.(D.) test for credibility and reliability, noting the significant time lapse since the incidents.

The court dismissed two sexual assault counts (Counts 1 and 5) due to insufficient detail and conflicting accounts, which raised reasonable doubt.

However, the court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on one count of sexual assault (Count 2) related to an incident at a hotel when the complainant was 16, rejecting the accused's evasive testimony.

The court also found the accused guilty on one count of assault causing bodily harm (Count 4) for pushing the complainant down stairs, causing her hand to go through glass, and on one count of assault (Count 3) for twice forcing her naked out of their apartment in winter conditions.

The court emphasized the accused's manipulative and controlling behavior throughout the marriage as corroborative evidence of his animus.

The two accused were jointly charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, who had consumed an unknown substance and alcohol, lost consciousness but later experienced a flashback of being sexually assaulted by one accused while the other accused watched and provided encouragement.

The court found the complainant's flashback memory to be reliable, as it was consistent and corroborated by physical bruising.

The court held that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

Both accused were found guilty, with the observing accused convicted as a party to the offence for aiding and abetting by facilitating the assault and encouraging the principal offender.

The applicants, jointly charged with historical sexual offences, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was approximately 35 months.

The court deducted periods of defence-caused delay, reasonable judicial reserve time, and exceptional circumstances arising from one applicant's Legal Aid application process.

After deductions, the net delay for both applicants fell well below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

As the applicants failed to demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, the applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and over 80.

She brought a Charter application alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that her right to counsel was infringed due to a staticky phone line when speaking to duty counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officer had ample objective and subjective grounds based on the accused's driving, physical indicia of impairment, and admissions.

The court also found no s. 10(b) violation, as the accused failed to be duly diligent in exercising her rights and indicated to police that she was satisfied with the legal advice received.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 charge.

The young person, charged with sexual offences against two different complainants, brought an application to sever the counts relating to one complainant from those relating to the other.

The court considered the factors for severance, noting the young person's intention to testify regarding one complainant but not the other, the lack of factual nexus between the incidents, and the potential for prejudice.

The court concluded that the interests of justice required severance and granted the application.

The applicants sought relief under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that a search warrant authorizing the search of their motel room lacked reasonable grounds and that the resulting drug evidence should be excluded.

The reviewing judge found that the information to obtain contained omissions and inaccuracies and that reasonable grounds to search the motel room did not exist, rendering the search unreasonable under s. 8.

However, applying the framework from Grant and Harrison, the court concluded the police acted in overall good faith and that the misleading aspects of the warrant materials were at the lower end of seriousness.

Given the reliability and importance of the seized drug evidence and society’s interest in adjudicating serious trafficking charges on their merits, exclusion under s. 24(2) was not warranted.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for robbery, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and related offences arising from a failed drug transaction on December 4, 2012, outside the Nickel City Hotel in Greater Sudbury.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated an unprovoked knife attack on the female accused, which the male accused defended against.

The court rejected this defence of necessity, finding instead that the accused had planned to rob the complainant of money during a drug deal.

The court convicted both accused of robbery and related offences while staying certain charges as duplicitous under the Kienapple and Prince principles.