T. Morris

The applicant mortgagor challenged various fees included in two mortgage discharge statements provided by the respondent mortgagees.

The court disallowed the renewal fees, finding no evidence of an agreement to renew.

The court also struck the NSF and late payment administration fees, ruling they constituted unlawful penalties under section 8 of the Interest Act as there was no evidence they reflected actual administrative costs.

The legal and power of sale fees were referred to an Assessment Officer under the Mortgages Act.

The accused was charged with first degree murder following the abduction, severe beating, and death of the victim over a drug debt.

The accused conceded causing the death and forcible confinement, leaving the sole issue of whether he had the requisite intent for murder.

The court found that the accused's actions, including the brutal attack and leaving the victim in a remote, freezing field with severe injuries, demonstrated the requisite intent for murder.

The accused was found guilty of first degree murder.

The accused was convicted by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code after police executing a search warrant discovered a loaded sawed‑off shotgun with a defaced serial number in a gym bag near where the accused was staying.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three and one‑half to four years, emphasizing the seriousness of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and the accused’s youth record involving violence.

The defence argued for a reformatory sentence of 18 to 24 months, relying on the unconstitutionality of the mandatory minimum under s. 95 and the accused’s rehabilitative prospects.

The court rejected the Crown’s request to treat alleged drug dealing as an aggravating factor because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Considering denunciation and deterrence while recognizing rehabilitation prospects and the circumstances of possession, the court imposed a two‑year custodial sentence followed by two years’ probation, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicants appealed an arbitration award concerning a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 and alleged negligent misrepresentation in financial forecasts relating to a Canadian Tire store development.

They argued the arbitrator applied an incorrect legal test for negligent misrepresentation and erred in assessing reliance, causation, and damages.

The court held that the scope of review was limited to errors of law and concluded the arbitrator had effectively applied the correct test from Queen v. Cognos Inc. The arbitrator’s findings that the forecasts were not negligently prepared and that the applicants did not rely on them were factual determinations not subject to appeal.

The court also upheld the arbitrator’s approach to damages and the interpretation of the release provisions in the dealer contract.