T. Skarica

The plaintiff, Patrick Lyng, sued Ontario Place Corporation under the Occupiers' Liability Act for a serious knee injury sustained after a concert.

The injury occurred when he fell down a wet, grassy hill after a pedestrian bridge, the shortest route to the Go Station, was closed.

The court found Ontario Place Corporation 75% liable for failing to take reasonable care by not providing adequate warnings or barriers for the known hazardous hill, especially given the wet conditions and the presence of intoxicated patrons.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for jumping down the hill while intoxicated and wearing flip-flops.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past income loss, and future loss of competitive advantage, totaling $131,525.41 before prejudgment interest, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The accused was convicted of five criminal offences, including possession of a stolen van, stolen firearms, and driving offences following a police chase.

During arrest, the accused was shot and sustained severe, unhealed injuries leading to significant disability.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration risk and the accused's serious injuries and chaotic childhood.

The court ultimately imposed a suspended sentence and two years' probation, giving credit for pre-trial custody and the severe injury sustained during arrest, finding no further benefit in incarceration.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including possession of stolen property and firearms following a break and enter.

During his arrest after fleeing a stolen van, a police officer shot the accused in the leg, believing the accused was armed and about to shoot.

The accused brought a Charter application under ss. 7 and 12, alleging excessive force by the police.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officer's belief that he faced imminent grievous bodily harm or death was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and entered convictions on counts 2 through 6 of the indictment.

The accused, a former financial advisor, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000 after collecting approximately $12 million from 41 investors for supposedly low-risk real estate and corporate bond investments.

Instead of investing the funds as promised, the accused operated a Ponzi scheme, diverting the money to pay spousal support, fund his failing businesses, and make partial repayments to earlier investors.

The court found the accused's testimony to be entirely lacking in credibility and rejected the defence's forensic accounting evidence.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed.

The applicants sought declarations and an injunction against Norfolk County regarding a police firing range on county land.

The court found that the firing range was not lawfully established before August 5, 1986, and thus was not a permitted or legal non-conforming use under subsequent bylaws.

Furthermore, even if it had been initially lawful, its significant intensification over the years, including expanded hours, increased lanes, and stray bullets on adjacent property, constituted a "difference in kind" in its community impact, thereby losing any potential acquired rights.

The court dismissed the respondent's defence of laches, finding the community's delayed complaints reasonable given the initial limited use and subsequent dramatic intensification and safety concerns.

An order was issued declaring the facility unlawful and granting a permanent injunction.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a collision and brought a Charter motion seeking exclusion of statements and breath test results.

She argued police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, that her roadside statements were compelled under statutory accident‑reporting obligations, and that her rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter were violated.

The court held the accused failed to prove her statements were compelled and found the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on observations of impairment, witness information, and the unexplained collision.

The court further found no breach of the right to counsel or the informational component of detention.

The Charter application to exclude evidence was dismissed.