Thomas A. Bielby

The accused was charged with sexual assault after the complainant awoke to find him naked and on top of her following an evening of heavy drinking and marijuana use.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to her intoxication and inconsistencies in her testimony.

The court found the complainant credible despite memory fragmentation, noting her core account of the assault remained consistent.

The accused was found guilty.

The Offender, A.H., was found guilty of child luring over the internet, contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, involving a 15-year-old victim.

The offence included sending offensive material and invitations for sexual acts.

A.H. had no prior criminal record but denied the offence and expressed no remorse.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15 months imprisonment and probation, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing principles.

The court considered the statutory minimum sentence of one year and the revised sentencing range for child luring, noting the upward adjustment from previous case law (Jarvis) as clarified by Woodward.

The judge imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment and one year probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA sample, 20 years on the Sex Offender Registry, and a 10-year prohibition from certain locations and contact with persons under 16.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of the accused's audio/video recorded statement.

The accused brought a cross-application to exclude the statement, alleging violations of sections 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

The court found that the police officer failed to provide a full caution, specifically omitting that anything the accused said could be used against him in court.

Despite the accused having consulted counsel and being told not to speak, the officer continued questioning and made comments that, while not amounting to lawyer denigration, contributed to an environment where the accused could not make a free and meaningful choice.

The court concluded that the lack of a full caution, in these circumstances, raised a reasonable doubt about the statement's voluntariness, leading to its exclusion.

This ruling concerns an assessment of a lawyer's account following a settled motor vehicle accident claim.

The applicant sought an assessment of the contingency fee agreement (CFA) with the respondent law firm.

The court addressed jurisdictional and limitation period arguments, finding special circumstances to allow the assessment.

The primary issue was the interpretation of the CFA and an Authorization and Direction, particularly regarding the allocation of a $65,000 costs contribution from the settlement and the payment of co-counsel fees.

The court found that the respondent was not entitled to both the contingency fee and the costs portion of the settlement without a specific agreement and court approval, as per section 28.1(8) of the Solicitors Act.

The court also determined that co-counsel was an agent of the respondent, and their fees should be paid from the respondent's contingency fee.

The applicant sought to exclude eyewitness identification evidence of a police officer in a criminal case involving drug possession and trafficking.

The officer identified the applicant as a passenger in a vehicle stop, initially based on a single MTO photograph and later confirmed upon arrest.

The court conducted a voir dire to assess the admissibility of this evidence, considering its reliability, the officer's flawed note-keeping, and the presence of confirmatory evidence from other sources, including the driver's testimony.

The application was dismissed, with the court ruling that the evidence was admissible, subject to proper jury instructions on its frailties and weight.

The accused, Faith Chinwendu Uzondu, was charged with importing heroin, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and two counts of conspiracy related to heroin.

The heroin was found in a package delivered to her home.

The accused admitted involvement in various fraudulent activities but denied knowledge of the package's drug contents, claiming she believed it contained fraudulent credit cards or passports.

The court rejected the accused's testimony due to numerous lies and inconsistencies.

While acquitted of the importation and conspiracy charges due to reasonable doubt regarding her involvement at the time of importation and lack of evidence linking her to other packages, she was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court concluded that the accused was willfully blind to the package's contents, or had actual knowledge, given her anxiousness to dispose of the package and her general indifference to the nature of illegal items as long as she was paid.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff.

The court applied the five principles from *Intact Insurance Co. v. Kisel*, considering promptness, plausible explanation for default, arguable defence, potential prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The court found that the defendant satisfied the criteria, noting issues of sharp practice by plaintiff's counsel and an arguable defence regarding defamation and non-refundable deposits.

The motion was granted, setting aside the default judgment, and the defendant was ordered to file a statement of defence and, if applicable, a motion to challenge jurisdiction.

The defendants moved under Rule 21.01(b) to strike the plaintiff's amended statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, specifically challenging allegations of intentional interference, nuisance, and conspiracy against individual directors and the building manager.

The court, applying a low threshold for pleading a cause of action, found that the plaintiff's claim sufficiently pleaded the necessary facts for all three torts against the individual defendants, including their personal liability for tortious conduct.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The accused, Terrence Kum, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging abuse of process due to the Crown's historical and deliberate non-disclosure of relevant information and the loss of evidentiary material.

The application centered on alleged police misconduct within the Toronto Airport Drug Enforcement Unit (TADEU), specifically concerning Officer Ross Adair's involvement in a prior investigation (Project E-Plug) where notes were falsified.

The defence argued that the Crown's disclosure regarding TADEU corruption was insufficient and prejudiced the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court found that while the Crown could have provided more comprehensive disclosure, the information provided was sufficient to put previous defence counsel on notice.

The court determined that the defence failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing further disclosure and that the misconduct, while egregious, did not relate directly to the accused's case (Project O’Cook) to the extent that it warranted a stay.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the conduct did not meet the "clearest of cases" threshold for a stay, and the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial provided an adequate alternative remedy.

The accused was charged with luring a child and exposing genitals for a sexual purpose.

The Crown alleged the accused sent explicit pictures and messages to the complainant, who was under 16, via Facebook.

The court found the accused guilty of luring a child, based on circumstantial evidence including the use of his known nickname and email, and post-offence conduct indicating an attempt to destroy evidence.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of exposing genitals, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the penis in the pictures was that of the accused.

In a historical sexual offence trial involving two child complainants and their maternal uncle, the central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction because the accused may have been under 18 when the alleged offences occurred.

The court accepted the complainants as credible but found their evidence unreliable on timing, including their ages at the time and whether the events occurred before or after the accused's eighteenth birthday.

Applying authorities placing the burden on the Crown to prove adult court jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt once the issue is raised, the court held that burden was not met.

The charges were dismissed without any ruling on culpability.

The defendants, Dr. Hans Dietrich Strauss and The Credit Valley Hospital, brought motions for summary judgment in a medical malpractice case concerning the death of Paul Delicata.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence in the care of the deceased.

The court found the plaintiffs' expert evidence inadmissible due to procedural non-compliance (not attached to an expert's affidavit, non-compliance with Rule 53.03 requirements).

Even if admissible, the expert reports were deficient and contradicted by hospital records.

The court accepted the defendants' expert evidence, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the standard of care or causation.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed against both defendants.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against two police officers and the Toronto Police Services Board, alleging harassment, racial profiling, breach of trust, and conspiracy after being questioned by police in a parking lot.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11.

The court found that the torts of harassment and racial profiling were not properly pleaded or recognized, and that the claims for breach of trust and conspiracy lacked material facts.

The court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, concluding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious.

The plaintiff brought an action against several police officers and the Peel Police Services Board, alleging bad faith, bias, breach of trust, conspiracy, and harassment after police accompanied a third party to serve legal documents at the plaintiff's home and allegedly failed to investigate a threat.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim.

The court found that the police owed no private duty of care to the plaintiff to investigate or warn him of the attendance.

The court also found the pleadings for conspiracy, bad faith, and harassment were deficient and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against multiple defendants, including the Peel Police, Toronto Police, OIPRD, and the City of Toronto, alleging negligent investigation, conspiracy, bad faith, and other torts arising from the handling of his stolen vehicle report and previous criminal convictions.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being frivolous and vexatious, as well as a motion for summary judgment.

The court struck the claims against the moving defendants, finding that the police and OIPRD owed no private duty of care to the plaintiff, the conspiracy allegations lacked material facts, and the claims regarding past convictions were impermissible collateral attacks.

Summary judgment was also granted dismissing claims of theft and Charter breaches during an arrest, as there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The parties separated after a 19-year marriage.

The applicant sought to enforce a separation agreement that resolved property issues and waived spousal support.

The respondent sought to set aside the agreement, alleging duress and lack of financial disclosure, particularly regarding the applicant's pension and her own foreign properties.

The court upheld the separation agreement regarding property, finding no duress or material non-disclosure.

However, applying the Miglin framework, the court set aside the spousal support waiver, finding it did not meet the objectives of the Divorce Act given the respondent's economic disadvantage and hardship.

The court imputed income to the respondent, calculated her child support obligations, and ordered the applicant to pay net spousal support of $787.00 per month.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death, failing to remain at the scene, possession of stolen property, and driving while disqualified, following a fatal collision.

The accused, driving a stolen truck, fled from police at high speeds, ran a red light, and struck another vehicle, killing its driver.

The accused then fled on foot but was apprehended shortly after.

The primary issue at trial was identity.

The court accepted the police officer's eyewitness testimony and the accused's post-offence conduct as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown applied to admit a videotaped statement of a deceased witness under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The witness had reported finding a handgun in a backpack in his home.

The statement was not given under oath and no warning was provided.

The court found that necessity was established by the witness's death.

Threshold reliability was established because the statement was corroborated by the testimony of another witness who was present when the gun was found.

The court admitted the statement, subject to the redaction of certain prejudicial portions that implied the accused had a criminal record or other charges.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention seeking the return of the parties' child to Israel.

The parties had moved from Israel to Ontario so the respondent mother could attend a veterinary residency program.

They separated shortly after arriving when the respondent discovered the applicant using dating websites.

The court found that despite the short duration of their stay before separation, the parties had established a settled intention to reside in Ontario for at least three years.

Consequently, the child's habitual residence was Ontario, and the Hague Convention application was dismissed.

The maternal grandparents and mother sought a stay of an Ontario Court of Justice order that granted temporary care and custody of two children to their father pending an appeal.

The children had been living with the maternal grandparents after the mother voluntarily placed them there.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the stay, finding that the appeal raised serious issues, including whether a parent has priority over a grandparent, and that it was in the children's best interests to remain in their current, familiar environment with the maternal grandparents to minimize disruption pending the appeal.