Vanessa V. Christie

The appellant, Robin Titcombe, appealed his convictions for impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample.

He raised four grounds: unlawful breath demand, inappropriate inference of guilt from refusal, misapprehension of evidence regarding reasonable grounds for arrest and demand, and failure to apply the proper test for impaired operation.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the breath demand was lawful, the adverse inference from refusal was properly drawn, reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and demand, and the "slight impairment" test was correctly applied based on the totality of evidence.

The defendants brought a cross-motion under Rule 21.01(3)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal capacity to commence or continue the action.

The defendants argued that the loan funds were not advanced by Scott Dorey, that the Dorey Capital Family Trust (DCFT) had conveyed its rights to the funds to other entities, and that Ora Trustees Limited had not proven its trusteeship.

The plaintiffs disputed these claims, asserting that Scott Dorey was a proper party, that no valid transfer of receivables occurred, or that they were transferred back to DCFT, and provided evidence of Ora's trusteeship.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test for Rule 21 motions, noting that such motions are not for resolving serious factual disputes or credibility issues.

Given the numerous disputed facts and credibility determinations required regarding the alleged transfers of the loan receivable and the chain of trusteeship, the court dismissed the defendants' motion.

This motion addressed whether a main action and a third-party action, stemming from a property dispute involving an encroaching structure, should be heard concurrently or sequentially.

The Plaintiffs sought a combined hearing, while the Defendants and Third Parties preferred separate proceedings.

The court, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness, determined that the intertwined factual and legal issues, particularly concerning the appropriate equitable remedy for the admitted trespass and the allocation of financial responsibility among all parties, necessitated a single, consolidated trial.

The motion for concurrent hearings was granted to avoid multiplicity of actions and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with serious firearms and drug trafficking offences, sought a bail review on the sole ground that the Justice of the Peace failed to give due weight to Gladue considerations under s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the application of Gladue principles at the bail stage, noting that while judicial notice must be taken of systemic factors, the accused should provide case-specific information bearing on release.

The court found the Justice of the Peace had properly considered the applicant's unique circumstances and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction to review.

The offender, a police officer, was sentenced for multiple offences including breach of trust, unauthorized use of a computer, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, and trafficking by offer.

The offences involved accessing confidential police databases for unauthorized purposes, planning to rob a fictional drug warehouse, stealing a police shotgun, and offering to traffic cocaine.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe breach of public trust.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 7.5 years imprisonment.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident in a hot tub at a cottage.

The Crown alleged that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity, while the accused testified that the complainant affirmatively consented to both vaginal and attempted anal intercourse.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused's evidence to be straightforward and believable, raising a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, the court found material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and conflicts with other witnesses' testimonies.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after a prohibited handgun was found under the front passenger seat of a vehicle he was driving.

The case turned on circumstantial proof of knowledge and control, including proximity to the firearm, the degree of its visibility, the presence of alleged firearm-related items in the centre console, and the accused’s departure and flight when tactical officers approached.

Applying the circumstantial evidence framework from Villaroman and the principles governing after-the-fact conduct, the court held that guilt was not the only reasonable inference available.

The court further held that a reasonable alternative explanation for the accused’s flight, including fear arising from the reality of anti-Black racism and police interaction, had to be considered.

The Crown failed to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant Medical Officer of Health sought an ex parte injunction under section 102 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act to restrain the respondent restaurant owner from contravening a section 22 order.

The respondent had repeatedly refused to comply with COVID-19 regulations regarding masking, contact tracing, and proof of vaccination for indoor dining.

The court found a clear breach of the enactment and granted an interim interlocutory injunction for 10 days, scheduling a return hearing to allow the respondent an opportunity to participate.

The accused was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder for the stabbing deaths of a father and son in their home.

The mandatory sentence is life imprisonment.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 20 years, while the defence sought 16 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, the accused's background, and the impact of pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court set the period of parole ineligibility at 18 years concurrent on each count, commencing from the date of arrest.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, citing anticipated delays in scheduling civil jury trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to bring the motion under Rule 48.04(1) but ultimately dismissed the motion to strike the jury notice.

The court found that the plaintiff had not moved the action forward expeditiously prior to the pandemic and failed to demonstrate that any potential delay outweighed the defendant's substantive right to a jury trial, noting that civil jury trials were likely to resume by May 2022.

The accused, a police officer, was found guilty of multiple offences including unauthorized use of a computer, breach of trust, possessing a stolen firearm, and drug trafficking following an undercover police corruption investigation.

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing he was entrapped by undercover officers and that the investigation amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the accused was entrapped into committing theft and uttering forged documents relating to a fabricated confidential informant report, as the police induced the offences without reasonable suspicion, and stayed those counts.

However, the court dismissed the entrapment application for the remaining offences, finding that reasonable suspicion existed and the accused was not induced, but rather created his own opportunities to commit the crimes.

The court also declined to grant a general stay for abuse of process.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on charges of invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, and sexual assault arising from two alleged incidents involving a child complainant related through marriage.

The central issue was whether the Crown had proven that the alleged events actually occurred.

The court reviewed the evidence of the complainant and her brother in detail, applying the governing approach to child witness credibility and the limited use of prior consistent statements.

While recognizing that delayed disclosure and post-incident behaviour could not undermine credibility through stereotype-based reasoning, the court found material inconsistencies within the complainant's evidence and significant conflicts between the siblings' accounts.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with first degree murder of Nickolas Pasowisty and second degree murder of James Pasowisty following a violent altercation at the victims' residence where the accused had gone to purchase marijuana.

The accused admitted to stabbing both victims but claimed he acted in self-defence after being attacked.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it inconsistent with the physical evidence, blood spatter analysis, and pathology findings.

The court found the accused guilty of second degree murder for both victims, concluding the Crown disproved self-defence and provocation beyond a reasonable doubt, but failed to prove the unlawful confinement required to elevate the murder of Nickolas to first degree murder.

The applicant, serving a seven-year aggregate sentence for fraud, money laundering, and a criminal organization offence, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his ineligibility for accelerated parole review (APR).

He argued that while the criminal organization offence was ineligible for APR, his other offences should be considered separately and remain eligible.

The court found that while the applicant's argument had logical merit, it was bound by appellate authority holding that a single excludable offence renders an offender ineligible for APR on the entire merged sentence.

The application was dismissed.

The 71-year-old offender was convicted of sexual exploitation for performing oral sex on a 15-year-old male who lived with him in 1988.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was legally available under s. 11(i) of the Charter, as there was no mandatory minimum at the time of the offence.

Considering the offender's advanced age, deteriorating health due to Parkinson's disease, genuine remorse, and low risk to reoffend, the court concluded that a conditional sentence would meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation.

The parties cohabited for nine years and had one child.

Following separation, the respondent sought spousal support, equalization of net family property, and proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

The court imputed an income of $65,000 to the respondent, who operated a cleaning business and received CPP disability benefits, finding she was intentionally under-employed by choice to prioritize her child and health.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, finding the respondent was self-sufficient and suffered no economic disadvantage from the marriage.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $125,747.88, maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy to secure child support, and pay 60% of section 7 expenses.

The accused, a police officer, was targeted in an undercover corruption investigation.

He was charged with 14 offences arising from his interactions with an undercover officer posing as his partner and another undercover officer posing as a mid-level organized crime figure.

The court found the accused guilty of theft and uttering forged documents for keeping money intended for a fictitious confidential informant and forging the receipt.

He was also found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer and breach of trust for running licence plates for personal reasons and to assist the undercover drug dealer.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a firearm obtained by crime and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose after he stole a police shotgun in preparation for robbing a drug warehouse.

However, he was acquitted of attempted robbery because his extensive planning had not progressed beyond mere preparation.

He was also convicted of trafficking cocaine by offer and trafficking steroids to the undercover officer.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions and sentence for repeated harassing telecommunication and breach of recognizance.

The charges arose from a prolonged dispute regarding a local dog park, during which the appellant repeatedly emailed a volunteer and posted about her online in breach of his bail conditions.

On appeal, the appellant raised numerous grounds, including errors in arraignment, limitation periods, mens rea, and the trial judge's handling of his self-represented status and the appointment of section 486.3 counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings sound, his legal analysis correct, and his management of the trial exceedingly fair to the self-represented appellant.

The 60-day conditional sentence and suspended sentences were upheld as fit.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a paragraph from the plaintiff's Reply and Defence to Counterclaim under Rule 25.11.

The plaintiff, a dentist, sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal and discrimination, alleging a pattern of discriminatory conduct against female employees.

In her Reply, she alleged a broader pattern of spurious allegations against any employee who left the practice.

The court found the impugned paragraph was a bald statement without supporting facts, overly broad, and amounted to a fishing expedition that would prejudice and delay the fair trial of the action.

The motion was granted and the paragraph was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant tenant brought an application for the return of moneys held by the respondent landlord following the end of a commercial lease.

The landlord claimed the tenant owed occupancy costs, utilities, and damages for move-out deficiencies.

The court found the landlord's accounting unreliable, as it was uncertified, inconsistent, and relied on hearsay evidence.

The court ordered the landlord to return $49,906.00 to the tenant, representing the funds held less conceded unpaid rent.

Claims by both parties for additional damages were dismissed due to insufficient evidence and the lack of a cross-application by the landlord.