Woollcombe

The offender was found guilty by a jury of importing approximately 2.9 kilograms of cocaine hidden in his suitcase.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a sentence of five and a half years, which is below the usual range of six to eight years for first-time importers.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding that the offender's severe cognitive deficits and the certainty of his deportation to Guyana were unusual mitigating circumstances that justified a departure from the usual range.

The offender was sentenced to five and a half years in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit.

In an uncontested family law trial where the applicant husband failed to appear, the court determined equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs.

The parties were married for two years.

The respondent wife sought equalization of the matrimonial home, contents, and vehicles, which the court granted, ordering the applicant to pay $95,855.79.

The respondent also sought an extension of spousal support for four more years to complete language and paralegal training.

The court declined, finding the requested duration excessive for a short marriage, and terminated support effective May 1, 2016.

The respondent was awarded $12,000 in costs on a partial recovery basis.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of importing heroin and conspiracy to import heroin.

The sentencing judge determined that the offender was a joint principal and organizer of a sophisticated international drug smuggling operation involving multiple importations from Africa to Canada and the United States.

The court rejected the argument that the offender's tragic personal history as a survivor of the Rwandan genocide warranted a departure from the usual sentencing range, as there was no link between her history and the offences.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 15 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, along with mandatory weapons prohibition and DNA orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a seized charge against the defendants' property.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but sought relief from accrued interest under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, arguing they could not make payments after the original lender's principal was arrested.

The court found the 13% interest rate was not excessive given the risk, and the transaction was not unconscionable as the defendants freely entered into it and failed to utilize the Mortgages Act to pay the debt into court when the lender could not be found.

Summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff.

The applicants, charged with multiple drug trafficking offences, brought an application under s 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 39 months.

The court applied the Morin framework, attributing much of the delay to inherent time requirements and defence actions, calculating institutional delay at just over 16 months.

Finding minimal prejudice to the applicants' liberty and fair trial rights, the court concluded the balance favoured society's interest in a trial on the merits and dismissed the stay application.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and obstructing police after officers observed what they believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction from her vehicle.

The accused testified she was retrieving a lost cell phone, and her boyfriend testified he had hidden the drugs in her car without her knowledge.

The court found the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding her knowledge of the drugs, resulting in acquittals on the drug charges.

However, the accused was convicted of obstructing police for actively resisting her arrest.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child support, child support arrears, and section 7 expenses, seeking to impute an income of $78,000 to the respondent.

The court found the respondent had unexplained bank deposits in 2014 and imputed his income at $64,589.33 for that year.

For 2015, the court found the respondent intentionally underemployed and imputed an income of $28,080.00 based on his capacity to work full-time.

Interim child support and section 7 arrears were calculated at $8,364.97, which were satisfied by funds previously released from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The accused was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed on a joint submission of four years' imprisonment but disagreed on whether the accused should receive pre-sentence custody credit for time spent in custody on separate, outstanding charges in another jurisdiction.

The court accepted the joint submission of four years but declined to grant credit for the time served on the outstanding charges, holding that such credit should be determined when those specific charges are resolved.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

On a blended voir dire, the accused alleged that his warrantless arrest and subsequent search violated his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking exclusion of the heroin under s. 24(2).

The court found that the arresting officer had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused based on surveillance observations of a suspected drug transaction.

Consequently, there were no Charter violations.

The court further held that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the officer acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and essential.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his wife, who had been noted in default, for funds she allegedly diverted and stole from him.

The court granted summary judgment for $466,420.22, finding that the debt would survive bankruptcy due to fraud.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's requests for a vesting order over the defendant's personal property and for an order redirecting hypothetical future settlement funds, as the legal requirements for such orders were not met.

The moving party father brought a motion for access to his two-year-old daughter.

The responding party mother argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the motion was brought after a 30-day deadline set in a previous order.

The court extended the time to hear the motion under Rule 3(5) of the Family Law Rules, noting the father had not seen the child in several months.

The mother sought supervised access, but the court found no basis for her concerns or that the father was a flight risk.

The court ordered temporary unsupervised access twice a week and prohibited the removal of the child from Ontario.