S. Woods

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual interference and sexual assault against P.H., the biological father of the complainant, M.H. The allegations spanned from 2011 to 2014, when M.H. was between three and four years old.

M.H. testified at age 13, describing multiple incidents of sexual touching of her vagina by the accused, primarily in the bathroom during bath/shower times when her mother was absent.

The defence challenged the reliability of M.H.'s historical memory due to her young age at the time of the incidents and inconsistencies in her testimony.

The court, applying principles for assessing child witnesses, found M.H.'s evidence credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies and "blended memories," as her core account of sexual touching by her father remained consistent.

The accused's denial was rejected as evasive and unreliable.

P.H. was found guilty of sexual interference, and the sexual assault charge was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with sexual assault after allegedly anally penetrating the complainant while the complainant was asleep and highly intoxicated.

The complainant had travelled to meet a woman from an online dating app, became heavily intoxicated, and fell asleep in her bed.

The accused, a friend of the woman, entered the home and engaged in sexual acts with the complainant.

The court rejected the accused's claim of communicated consent, finding the complainant lacked capacity to consent due to intoxication and sleep, and that the accused was reckless or wilfully blind to this lack of capacity.

The accused was found guilty.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to produce pre-July 2015 plant data and answer written discovery questions pursuant to a prior consent order.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to compel the moving party to answer written questions.

The court ordered the responding party to produce the plant data, with the moving party to pay 50% of the production costs up to $25,000.

The court also interpreted the prior consent order broadly, directing both parties to answer all refused written discovery questions relating to the amended pleadings.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of pointing a firearm, assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief to property against his spouse.

The Crown sought an upper reformatory sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence based on Gladue factors and his rehabilitative efforts.

The court weighed the need for denunciation and deterrence for spousal abuse involving firearms against the offender's unique background, intergenerational trauma from residential schools, and exceptional progress in counselling.

The court concluded that a combination of punitive and restorative objectives could be met with a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

The sentencing hearing was scheduled to proceed, but the Gladue Report prepared by Aboriginal Legal Services arrived the evening before the hearing.

Defence counsel requested an adjournment to review the 30-page report with the accused.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, noting the importance of Gladue Reports and the need for timely filing, particularly given the value of court time during the pandemic.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including assault, pointing a firearm, and mischief, arising from a seventeen-year relationship with the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the major incidents, including two instances of pointing a handgun and an assault with rocks, to be credible and reliable, supported by corroborating evidence.

However, the court had a reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of her testimony on lesser charges due to conflation of events over the lengthy period of abuse.

The accused was found guilty of assault, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, and mischief, but acquitted of the remaining charges.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, and robbery, following a violent home invasion committed by two masked men.

While one assailant pled guilty, the identity of the second assailant was at issue.

The Crown's case against the accused was entirely circumstantial, relying on the testimony of unreliable witnesses and lacking any forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

The defence advanced a viable alternate suspect theory pointing to the victim's son, who had motive and opportunity.

Applying the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence, the court found that the evidence did not lead to an inescapable inference of guilt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

During a criminal trial for a home invasion and assault, the Crown brought an application on a voir dire to admit the videotaped police statement of an unavailable witness under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The witness, who was initially arrested for the offences against his father, could not be located to testify.

The court found the necessity criterion was met but concluded the statement lacked threshold reliability.

Given the witness's animus toward the victim and his motive to fabricate while under arrest, the absence of an oath and contemporaneous cross-examination posed significant limitations on assessing the statement's truthfulness.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and unlawfully being in a dwelling house arising from an incident where he struck a victim in the head in the victim's home, causing unconsciousness, laceration, and concussion.

The offender also pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to appear in court and three counts relating to possession of brass knuckles while subject to weapons prohibition orders.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months' incarceration for the assault (less five months pre-sentence custody credit), resulting in three additional months of custody, concurrent three months for unlawful dwelling, and 30 days consecutive for weapons possession.

The court also imposed three years' probation with protective conditions for the victim.

The sentencing was influenced by COVID-19 pandemic considerations, the offender's prior violent criminal record, and his personal trauma from his father's suicide.

The plaintiff, AstraZeneca Canada Inc., applied for a Mareva injunction against the defendants, alleging a sophisticated fraud scheme involving duplicate claims and inflated drug reimbursements under AstraZeneca's patient programs.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud based on multiple suspicious factors, including a significant presence of duplicate claims, a large spike in reimbursement volumes, unusual drug claim patterns, lack of corresponding drug purchases, and frustrated audit attempts.

Applying the five requirements for a Mareva injunction, the court found full and frank disclosure, fulsome particulars of the claim, sufficient assets in Ontario, and a serious risk of asset dissipation due to the defendants' evasive actions (e.g., avoiding audits, sudden business closure, sale of an expensive car, and travel).

The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and there was a risk of irreparable harm without the injunction.

A worldwide injunction was granted against the individual defendants and most corporate defendants, with Shepherd RX Pharmacy Inc. temporarily excluded due to insufficient evidence at this stage.

The applicant corporation sought a final order approving a plan of arrangement under s. 182 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act in connection with the acquisition of all outstanding shares by a subsidiary of the purchaser corporation for cash consideration.

The court applied the framework from BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, requiring satisfaction that the transaction constituted a statutory arrangement, that procedural requirements were met, that the application was brought in good faith, and that the arrangement was fair and reasonable.

Evidence demonstrated a robust sale process, board oversight through a special committee, independent financial advice, and a significant premium to market value.

Shareholders overwhelmingly approved the arrangement, no dissent rights were exercised, and no opposition appeared.

The court concluded that the arrangement served a valid business purpose and fairly balanced the interests of affected stakeholders.