Priti Tamara Sugunasiri

The court sentenced the offender after jury convictions for aggravated assault and assault arising from a knife attack that caused serious abdominal injuries.

The judge found denunciation and deterrence paramount, accepted that the offender believed she was reacting to a perceived threat involving her infant, but held she made a deliberate decision to arm herself, pursue the complainant, and inflict serious harm.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of thirteen months on the aggravated assault count and ninety days concurrent on the assault count, credited five months for restrictive bail conditions and 179 days for pre-trial custody, and added one year of probation with strict conditions, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The decision concerns a fatal boating accident in Toronto, where Filip Grkovski was charged with multiple counts of criminal negligence and impaired operation causing death and bodily harm.

The court found that the only viable route to conviction was if Grkovski was proven to be driving at the time of the crash.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found reasonable doubt as to who was driving and acquitted Grkovski of all charges.

The court considered the Crown's application under section 714.2 of the Criminal Code to permit a key witness, Ms. Kelly Zeng, to testify by Zoom from outside Canada.

The application arose after the Crown failed to subpoena Ms. Zeng before she left the country.

The defence argued that the Crown should not benefit from its own negligence.

The court agreed, finding it contrary to the principles of fundamental justice to allow remote testimony in these circumstances, and dismissed the application, but left open the possibility for the Crown to renew it if further information became available.

The decision addresses a constitutional challenge to section 16(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) regarding the search of digital devices at the border.

The court finds that the provision is unconstitutional as it permits searches of digital devices without any threshold, and declares it null and void as against the applicant, Kerwin Sonny.

However, the court declines to exclude the evidence obtained from the search, applying the Grant analysis and finding that the state conduct was not serious, the impact on the applicant was substantial, but society’s interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The decision also clarifies the scope of standing for Charter challenges and the limits of remedies for third-party Charter violations.

The court granted all relief sought by Ms. Komuro in an uncontested family law trial, including lump sum spousal support, an equalization payment, a declaration of beneficial interest in the matrimonial home, and a vesting order.

The decision details the basis for imputing income to Mr. Lu, the application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, and the law of resulting trusts in the family context.

The court found Mr. Lu had failed to comply with disclosure and court orders, drew adverse inferences, and ordered costs against him.

The defendant, Jason Leslie Curnew, brought an application to stay proceedings for sexual assault under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 41 months.

The court dismissed the application, finding that after deducting defence-attributable delay, the net delay was 865 days, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that defence counsel had not demonstrated a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, attributing significant periods of delay to counsel's unavailability and procedural failures.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and crack for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking.

The case involved a Charter application to exclude evidence (drugs and shipment receipt) due to a s. 8 Charter violation by police for failing to file a timely Report to Justice.

The court found a s. 8 violation but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the Grant factors, noting the police conduct was negligent but not serious, and the impact on the defendant was minimal.

On the merits, the court found the defendant guilty of trafficking, concluding that he was the person who dropped off the package and knew its contents, or was wilfully blind, based on circumstantial evidence including fingerprints and suspicious shipping practices.

Jahvon Taijah Powell, charged with firearm and drug trafficking offences, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of a search warrant for his residence.

He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe a handgun would be found at his home.

The Crown conceded the initial ITO was insufficient but relied on a judicial summary from a Garofoli process.

The court dismissed Powell's application, finding that the augmented ITO, combined with police corroboration, provided sufficient case-specific information to infer the firearm would be at his residence.

The court distinguished this from cases lacking such specific links and affirmed the principle from R. v. Kalonji that a known association between an individual, a firearm, and their residence can establish reasonable grounds.

The defendant brought a s. 276 application to cross-examine the complainant on five lines of inquiry regarding her past sexual activity and non-disclosure, aiming to challenge the link between the alleged assault and pregnancy.

The court allowed inquiry into the complainant's understanding of pregnancy-causing sexual activity, her initial denial of sexual activity, and whether other sexual activities could have caused pregnancy, with limitations.

However, the court disallowed questioning on the non-disclosure of alleged assaults by the defendant's brothers and the nature and circumstances of those alleged assaults, finding them irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and offending the collateral fact rule.

The decision emphasizes balancing the accused's right to full answer and defence with the protection of the complainant under s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

Ilirjon Bajraktari was found guilty of possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defendant sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day to avoid deportation.

The court sentenced the defendant to two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, with strict house arrest and curfew, followed by one year of probation, along with ancillary orders (firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture).

The judge considered mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, family support, and pro-social efforts, and the potential impact on his immigration status, finding that a conditional sentence was appropriate for rehabilitation while still achieving denunciation and deterrence.

The defendants brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (money and a handgun) obtained during a police interaction, alleging multiple Charter breaches related to arbitrary detention, unlawful search and seizure, and denial of the right to counsel.

The court found no arbitrary detention at the initial stages of the police interaction and determined that the subsequent search and seizure were lawful, based on reasonable grounds of Liquor License Act and Cannabis Control Act violations.

While minor breaches of the right to counsel (failure to "hold off" questioning post-arrest) and a failure to report seized items to a justice were identified, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the seriousness of the conduct, the minimal impact on the defendants' rights, and society's strong interest in the adjudication of serious charges on their merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Andrew Francis was charged with drug offences following a warranted search.

He brought a Garofoli application to quash the search warrant and exclude evidence, arguing a lack of reasonable grounds.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO), including redacted confidential informer privilege information, and found sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed, and no Section 8 Charter violation was found.

This was a fraudulent conveyance action concerning the transfer of a property from Punit Lala and Pawan Lala to Pawan Lala and Rani Lala.

The transfer occurred after Punit Lala was served with a motion for summary judgment in a fraud action by the applicant, Infolink Technologies Corp. The court found that Punit Lala conveyed the property with the intent to defeat Infolink's ability to collect on a potential judgment, and that the other defendants (Pawan, Rani, and Kishore Lala) either knew about this intent or were wilfully blind to it.

The court also determined that Rani and Pawan Lala were not bona fide purchasers for value, as they did not act in good faith and the property was not transferred at fair market value.

The transfer was declared void as against Infolink, allowing them to execute against Punit Lala's ¼ interest in the property.

Infolink's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The Superior Court of Justice resolved a family law dispute concerning parenting time, decision-making, and child support for a four-year-old child.

The court granted the applicant father sole decision-making authority and primary care, citing concerns about the respondent mother's approach to the child's medical care, school attendance, potential exposure to adult sexual activity, and her mental health.

The judgment also determined child support arrears owed by the father and established future child support obligations for the mother, with an offset for the arrears.

This is a costs decision following an unsuccessful three-week trial where Robert Mark Roe challenged his mother's will and inter vivos gifts.

The court dismissed both actions (Will Action and Gift Action).

The decision addresses the costs sought by Randall Scott Roe (an estate trustee and successful respondent) and Raymond Christopher Roe (another estate trustee).

The court fixed costs, ordering Mark Roe to pay Randall Scott Roe $330,000 in all-inclusive costs, the estate to cover $260,338.03 of Randall's litigation costs, and Randall to be personally responsible for the balance.

Raymond Christopher Roe was reimbursed $170,000 from the estate for his conciliatory approach.

This trial decision addresses the validity of a Cohabitation Agreement (CA) and associated property claims between common-law spouses.

The Applicant sought to set aside the CA, alleging duress, undue influence, unconscionability, misrepresentation, and lack of meaningful independent legal advice (ILA), and claimed a constructive trust interest in the family home.

The court found that the Applicant was not under duress or undue influence when signing the CA, nor were the property division provisions unconscionable.

The court also determined that the parties' conduct did not repudiate the CA.

The Applicant's claims regarding the CA's validity concerning property rights and her constructive trust claim were dismissed, affirming that property should be divided according to legal title as per the agreement.

The court heard a family law trial involving divorced spouses, Maria and Antonio Moretti, addressing claims for spousal support, child support, equalization of net family property, constructive trust over the matrimonial home, occupation rent, and breach of trust.

The court dismissed Maria's claims for retroactive and ongoing spousal support and equalization, finding her to have recklessly dissipated assets through gambling and undeclared income, which made an equal division unconscionable.

Antonio's claims for occupation rent and breach of trust were also dismissed.

The only remaining issue was ongoing child support for their adult son with autism, for which further evidence was required.

This case involved a dispute over a verbal contract for the supply of coyote furs between a fur marketing company and a fur manufacturing company.

The marketing company sued for unpaid invoices, and the manufacturing company counterclaimed for breach of contract, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy.

The court found a binding oral contract for a specific quantity of furs at a fixed price.

The marketing company breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed quantity and by unilaterally increasing the price.

The court adjusted the marketing company's claim for unpaid invoices, granted the manufacturing company a refund for poor quality furs on one invoice, and relieved it from paying two other disputed invoices.

Claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and conspiracy were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Minimal damages were awarded to the manufacturing company for the breach of contract due to lack of reliable quantification and mitigation evidence.

A third-party claim against an individual was also dismissed.

The defendants, Costco entities, brought a motion to stay an action initiated by TicketOps Corporation, alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion of intellectual property.

The motion was based on arbitration clauses in agreements between the parties.

The plaintiff argued that the claims primarily related to platforms not covered by the arbitration clauses.

Applying the Haas v. Gunasekaram framework, the court found that the defendants had arguably demonstrated that the arbitration agreements applied to all platforms in dispute.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the arbitration provisions were clearly inoperative or unconscionable.

Consequently, the court stayed the action in favour of arbitration, acknowledging the potential for fragmented adjudication due to multiple arbitral forums.

The plaintiff, Ms. Emmanuel, sought general damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

A jury found her 75% at fault but awarded general damages and Family Law Act damages.

The court then conducted a threshold analysis under the Insurance Act to determine if Ms. Emmanuel's injuries constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court found insufficient objective medical evidence to support permanence of physical injuries and no sufficient evidence for psychological injuries beyond 2017, especially considering her post-accident activities and lack of consistent treatment.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action, finding that Ms. Emmanuel did not meet the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary damages.