Stuart Clark

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant, Blaze Box, brought a motion before the Court of Appeal seeking an extension of time to perfect his appeal of a lower court order (the "Third Conway Order") that required him to vacate an estate property.

He also requested the release of estate documents, a process to mortgage the property to pay out his siblings' shares, and a stay of the Third Conway Order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the appellant's delay in perfecting the appeal and no meritorious grounds for the appeal itself, particularly as previous unappealed orders had struck his notice of objection to the will and directed the issuance of a certificate of appointment of estate trustee.

The court concluded that the appellant had no proprietary interest in the property and that his actions were delaying the estate's administration.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking disclosure of financial statements, property appraisals, and an asset purchase agreement (Timbercreek APA) from the defendants, as well as information regarding whether the defendants sought legal advice concerning the discharge of mortgages.

The court largely granted the plaintiff's requests for financial and appraisal documents, and for inspection of the Timbercreek APA, finding them relevant to damages.

However, the court denied disclosure of the substance of legal advice, affirming solicitor-client privilege, but ordered disclosure of whether legal advice was sought, as this was relevant to the defendants' claim of taking all reasonable steps.

This decision addresses four motions in consolidated construction lien actions.

Lien claimants Vestacon Limited and Plan Group Inc. sought to validate their liens against properties owned by 1302207 Ontario Limited (Peter Co.) and 364 Richmond Street West Inc. (Richmond Co.), following the bankruptcy of the tenant, Arc Productions Ltd. The court declared all three Certificates of Substantial Performance (CSPs) invalid due to premature issuance and insufficient property descriptions.

Consequently, Vestacon's lien was found to be timely, having been registered within 45 days of contract completion.

The court also affirmed the validity of Vestacon's Section 19 notices to the landlords, establishing their liability.

Furthermore, Vestacon's lien was extended to include the 364 Richmond Street West property, and leave was granted to add Richmond Co. as a defendant.

For Plan Group's lien, while the CSPs were invalid, a genuine issue for trial was found regarding the exact date of last supply, leading to the dismissal of the owners' motion to declare Plan Group's lien expired.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Delano Coombs.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to admit a 3.5-hour audio-recorded statement made by Jerome Bent, a separately charged co-accused, to an undercover police agent (Jermaine Graham) for the truth of its contents.

The defence sought to admit a separate, unrecorded statement by Bent regarding a hoody he allegedly dropped at the scene.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay evidence under the necessity and reliability test.

While necessity was conceded, the court found that the Crown's proposed hearsay evidence did not meet the threshold reliability standard due to multiple frailties, including: the declarant's initial untruthfulness about the accused's involvement, leading and suggestive questioning by the undercover agent, minimal corroborating evidence directly linking the accused to the murder, and the absence of visual cues critical to assessing credibility.

The defence application regarding the hoody statement was similarly rejected despite substantial corroborating evidence, as the statement lacked sufficient indicia of reliability beyond the corroboration.

Both applications were dismissed.