S. Sullivan

The defendants, the City of Hamilton and Craig Saunders, brought motions for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claim sought $30 million in damages related to alleged illegal dumping of contaminated soil.

The court found that the defendants met their initial burden under Rule 56.01(1) and that the plaintiffs failed to prove impecuniosity, having structured their financial affairs to shelter assets through third-party litigation funding.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded that an order for security for costs was just and ordered the plaintiffs to pay a total of $376,976 into court.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to murder after being pressured by co-accused to help locate the victim, who was subsequently shot and killed by one of the co-accused.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of 5.5 years, reduced to 18 months after crediting 48 months for pre-trial custody and lockdown conditions.

The court noted the accused's cooperation with the Crown, his youth, Indigenous background, and lack of prior adult record as mitigating factors.

Criminal trial involving charges of assault and uttering threats against two defendants arising from allegations of child abuse occurring between November 1 and December 23, 2016.

The prosecution relied primarily on testimony from two teenage witnesses, one of whom was a close friend of the family.

The court found credibility issues with the witnesses' evidence, particularly regarding exaggeration and inconsistencies.

The defendants were charged with failing to provide necessaries of life, assault, and uttering threats.

The fail to provide necessaries charges were dismissed on application for directed verdict.

The court found the defendants guilty of two assault charges but acquitted them of the remaining charges.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug and breach of probation.

The accused was found sitting in his mother's vehicle in a farmer's field in the early morning hours.

Police observed dilated pupils, peculiar clothing, drug paraphernalia, and suspected drugs in the vehicle.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's physical presentation, dilated pupils, and items found in the vehicle to establish impairment.

The defence argued that the evidence amounted only to possibilities without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the accused's presentation was peculiar and possibly consistent with drug impairment, the absence of field sobriety testing, drug recognition expert evaluation, and chemical analysis of suspected substances, combined with limited evidence of actual incoordination, fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A young person brought an application to stay charges pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for breach of the section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The applicant faced charges arising from offences alleged to have occurred on October 25, 2015, including unlawfully being in a dwelling house, possession of a weapon, possession under $5,000, mischief to property, obstructing a peace officer, failing to comply with recognizance, and possession of MDMA.

The trial was originally scheduled to commence on November 9, 2016, but was delayed due to various procedural issues, including a defective information naming an incorrect accused, defence applications to quash the information and sever charges, and the recusal of the original trial judge.

The applicant argued that the total delay of approximately 18 to 20 months exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan and constituted an unreasonable delay.

The Crown argued that exceptional circumstances and defence delay should be deducted from the total delay, bringing it within acceptable limits for a transitional case.

A young person brought an application to stay charges pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for breach of section 11(b) rights (right to be tried within a reasonable time).

The applicant faced charges on two informations arising from offences alleged to have occurred on October 25, 2015.

The application was heard following the recusal of the original trial judge.

The court considered the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and applied it contextually to a case involving a young person and proceedings that commenced before the Jordan decision was released.

The court found that the Crown established exceptional circumstances justifying the delay and that the defence failed to demonstrate a violation of section 11(b) rights.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

The defendants argued that the motions judge erred by declining to summarily dismiss the action against them during the plaintiffs' motion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the summary judgment process is discretionary and does not require a judge to resolve all issues.

The court also held that the motions judge did not err in requiring the defendants to bring a formal cross-motion for summary dismissal to ensure fairness to the plaintiffs.

In a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined the temporary placement of three children.

The mother sought placement of all children with the maternal grandmother, citing allegations by one child that the father possessed weapons, used drugs, and engaged in abusive conduct.

The father denied the allegations and relied on a recent access order and a child protection worker’s investigation finding no safety concerns in his home.

The court found the allegations inconsistent with recent positive access experiences and unsupported by evidence.

A temporary order placed two children with their biological father under supervision and one child with the maternal grandparents under supervision.