Suhail A.Q. Akhtar

The appellant appealed his assault conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons and ignored evidence of self-defence and the complainant's intoxication.

The complainant, the sole witness at trial, testified that she had delivered the first blows during the altercation.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge's brief reasons inadequate, noting they failed to explain why the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and appeared to reverse the burden of proof regarding consent and self-defence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, Leon McIntyre, challenged the constitutionality of two Criminal Code provisions during his sentencing hearing: the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a restricted firearm (s. 344(1)) and the pre-sentence custody credit limit (s. 719(3.1)).

He argued these provisions violated sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges, finding that s. 344(1) was not grossly disproportionate to the applicant or reasonable hypothetical offenders, and that s. 719(3.1) was not a "punishment" under s. 12 and did not result in cruel and unusual punishment or arbitrary limitation of liberty.

The accused, Tryden Reis, was charged with attempted murder, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, aggravated assault, and using a firearm while committing aggravated assault.

The court addressed the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements from two key witnesses (Nicholas Gray and Kaion Brown) under R. v. Khelawon and R. v. B (K.G), admitting Gray's statement but rejecting Brown's due to its systematic deception.

An Edgar application to admit the accused's out-of-court utterance was dismissed, as Gray's question was an inquiry, not an accusation.

The primary defenses of accident and self-defense were rejected.

The court found that the victim, Tutu, was walking away when attacked, and the accused's subsequent shooting of Brown was neither in self-defense nor accidental.

Relying on Gray's police statement, video footage, and the accused's post-offence conduct (disposal of weapon and clothing), the court found culpability.

The plaintiff's action against police defendants, alleging Charter breaches, negligent investigation, falsified evidence, and assault, was dismissed after a lengthy trial where the plaintiff failed to prove any allegations and was found to be an incredible witness.

The defendants, as the successful parties, sought partial indemnity costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considered the seriousness of the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations and his conduct in forcing a lengthy trial.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the amount of $367,704.87, finding the request fair and reasonable.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's slip and fall action, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably during mediation and pre-trials.

The court found that while the plaintiff's evidence involved exaggeration and his refusal to compromise was unreasonable, his behaviour did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required for elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $139,821.66.

The appellant appealed two separate convictions resulting from guilty pleas to charges including uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

He argued that his pleas were uninformed and involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically alleging a failure to advise him of the immigration consequences of his pleas and the elements of the offences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding the appellant's testimony lacked credibility and that he failed to establish either incompetence by his former counsel or any resulting prejudice.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence, including a loaded restricted firearm, found during a police investigation at an apartment building.

The police attended the building after receiving an anonymous tip about a gun.

The court found that the police breached the accused's section 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during his initial detention and search, and breached his section 8 rights by entering his apartment without a warrant.

However, the court held that neither accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway where the firearm was discovered inside a plant cylinder.

The court also upheld the validity of a subsequent search warrant for the apartment.

As a result, the firearm and evidence found during the warranted search were ruled admissible.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's fabricated claims and an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not permit substantial indemnity costs for a successful defendant, and the plaintiff's conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required to justify elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $193,043.98.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a restricted firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and related offences after attacking a victim in his driveway and stealing his vehicle.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the offender sought 2-3 years with enhanced pre-sentence credit for harsh jail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for a violent home invasion.

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit beyond the 1.5:1 ratio, noting the offender's multiple institutional misconducts involving violence against other inmates.

The appellant appealed his convictions for committing an indecent act and mischief, arguing the trial judge erred in treating the TTC employee's identification evidence as recognition rather than eyewitness identification.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly cautioned herself on the frailties of eyewitness identification.

The court noted the witness had significant prior encounters with the appellant and that the identification was corroborated by circumstantial evidence found upon arrest.

The appellant appealed two sentences imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice, arguing that the sentencing judges should have imposed nominal fines to reduce the mandatory Victim Fine Surcharge (VFS).

In one case, the judge imposed a sentence of custody, probation, and a nominal fine, which the Crown conceded was an illegal sentence under s. 731(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the use of nominal fines solely to circumvent the mandatory VFS is impermissible and distorts the sentencing process.

The appeal against the first sentence was allowed to the extent that the nominal fines were quashed, leaving the custody and probation intact.

The appeal against the second sentence, where the judge declined to impose a nominal fine, was dismissed.

The applicant sought a conditional stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel, arguing indigence and the necessity of counsel for a fair trial given the serious and complex charges.

The Crown opposed, alleging lack of financial transparency and prudence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving indigence, having not provided sufficient financial documentation, made reasonable sacrifices, or prioritized legal fees over other expenditures.

The accused, Jesse French, was charged with aggravated assault and robbery following a brutal attack on Bryan Lavoie, which resulted in the loss of Mr. Lavoie's left eye.

The Crown's case relied on Mr. Lavoie's identification and surveillance video.

The defence challenged the identification, citing inconsistencies in Mr. Lavoie's testimony and contradictions with prior statements and video evidence.

The court found Mr. Lavoie's evidence unreliable due to intoxication, trauma, and discrepancies with prior statements and video footage.

While the accused's post-offence conduct of attempting to clean blood from the scene was noted, it was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without corroborating evidence of direct involvement in the assault.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with robbery, aggravated assault, and failing to comply with probation.

The central issue was identification.

The court considered eyewitness testimony, including a photo lineup and in-dock identification, alongside circumstantial evidence such as the accused's physical state, injuries, possession of money matching the stolen amount, a TTC transfer placing him at the scene, and suspicious conduct regarding a wet jacket.

Despite some inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, the cumulative circumstantial evidence, combined with one reliable eyewitness identification, proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff sued the police for negligent investigation, assault and battery, misfeasance of public office, and conversion of property following his arrest on drug trafficking charges that were later stayed.

The plaintiff alleged the police relied on fabricated information to obtain wiretap authorizations and used excessive force during his arrest, causing severe injuries including deep vein thrombosis.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the wiretap authorizations were validly issued based on reasonable grounds and the police did not breach their duty of care.

The court also rejected the plaintiff's claims of excessive force, finding his injuries were minor, his testimony lacked credibility, and his severe medical issues were pre-existing.

The applicant, Claudio Posocco, sought a declaration that his guarantee for a mortgage was discharged.

This application was a re-hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal, based on fresh evidence of a foreclosure judgment obtained by a prior mortgagee.

Posocco argued that the foreclosure extinguished his guarantee for a junior mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, distinguishing the facts from *Rushton v. Industrial Development Bank* by noting that the mortgages were distinct, not a single mortgage encompassing multiple parcels.

Relying on *Isman v. Sinnott*, the court held that foreclosure of a first mortgage by a party who also held a junior mortgage did not extinguish the rights under the junior mortgage's covenant.

Additionally, the court found that the guarantee's contractual terms explicitly made Posocco liable as a principal debtor even in the event of prior foreclosure, and that the property had not yet been disposed of, leaving open the potential for reconveyance.

The plaintiff alleged false imprisonment and injuries sustained after leaving a Canadian Tire store.

The defendants sought summary judgment on liability for false imprisonment and remoteness of damages.

The court found the defendants liable for false imprisonment, establishing a limited "shopkeeper's privilege" in Canadian common law for temporary detention to investigate theft, but ruled that the defendants exceeded its parameters by detaining the plaintiff to delete video footage.

However, the court found the plaintiff's claimed injuries sustained after leaving the store were too remote, applying an objective standard of foreseeability for a person of ordinary fortitude.

The City of Toronto and its Chief Building Official applied under s. 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992, for orders compelling Nikolaos Lambrinos and 1187310 Ontario Limited to remove unauthorized construction and comply with building and zoning by-laws at 102 and 104 Ulster Street.

The properties had a long history of unapproved additions and conversion into multiple dwelling units, deemed unsafe.

The respondents' defenses, including claims of non-receipt of orders and alleged permits, were rejected due to lack of credibility and evidence.

The court found flagrant and unjustified violations of the Building Code Act and Ontario Building Code, making retrospective approval impossible.

Steven Kark, an investment advisor, sued David Potter for breach of contract regarding the sale of Kark's "Book of Business" and a subsequent joint venture.

The parties had signed a "Revised Agreement" outlining commission payments.

Potter argued the agreement was a non-binding letter of intent or that Kark breached its terms by not becoming a partner, failing to deliver promised assets, leaving the business, or engaging in an undisclosed ATM venture.

The court found the agreement to be a binding contract, rejecting all of Potter's alleged breaches.

The court also dismissed Potter's argument that Kark failed to mitigate losses by not repurchasing the business.

Kark was awarded damages of $159,279.33 and costs.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion to recover alleged debt from the defendants based on a debt settlement agreement.

The defendants denied the contract or alleged breach by the plaintiff for failing to leave the ESL industry, and sought to amend their counterclaim to include this breach.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend their counterclaim, finding it was not prejudicial and disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff's summary judgment motion was dismissed, as the issues in the main action and the amended counterclaim were inextricably intertwined, creating a genuine issue requiring a trial and raising the risk of inconsistent findings and inefficient use of judicial resources if heard separately.