Purchase This Domain

Criminal procedure — Appeals — Sufficiency of reasons — Credibility findings — Defence theory of fabrication — Appellant convicted of sexual assault and choking to render the complainant incapable of resistance — Did the trial judge provide sufficient reasons for the convictions, particularly in addressing credibility findings and the defence theory of fabrication? — Reasons, when read contextually, adequately explained the basis for the convictionsEvidence — Credibility — Application of R. v. W.(D). — Credibility contest — Trial judge rejected defence witness’s evidence as inconsistent and unreliable — Complainant’s evidence accepted as consistent and credible — Did the trial judge err in applying the principles from R. v. W.(D)., including improperly staging a credibility contest? — Trial judge properly applied W.(D). and made distinct credibility findings

Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Possession for the purpose of trafficking — Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of 1,279 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking — Sentenced to three years in custody — Whether the sentencing judge erred in ruling out a conditional sentence, failed to consider the appellant’s specific circumstances, or imposed a manifestly unfit sentence — Importance of denunciation and deterrence — Sentence upheld as appropriate and consistent with similar casesCriminal procedure — Sentencing appeals — Conditional sentences — Appellant argued sentencing judge erred in ruling out a conditional sentence based solely on the quantity of cocaine — Court held that the sentencing judge did not implicitly rule out conditional sentences for such cases but found a custodial sentence appropriate based on the circumstances — No error in principleCriminal procedure — Sentencing appeals — Tailoring sentences — Appellant argued sentencing judge failed to consider his specific circumstances, including mitigating factors such as guilty plea, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts — Court found sentencing judge reviewed and acknowledged these factors but concluded custodial sentence was warranted due to the quantity of cocaine and need for deterrence — No error in principleCriminal procedure — Sentencing appeals — Fitness of sentence — Appellant argued three-year custodial sentence was manifestly unfit — Court held sentence was consistent with similar cases involving over one kilogram of cocaine — Sentence not disproportionate or manifestly unfit — Appeal dismissed

Civil procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Self-represented litigants — Appellant sought an extension of time to perfect the appeal, citing health challenges and confusion regarding transcript requirements — Should the appellant be granted an extension despite non-compliance with Rule 61.05(5)? — Extension denied as moot since perfection deadline had not yet begun due to transcript requirements — Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rules 61.05(5), 61.09(1), 61.13(1)Evidence — Transcript requirements — Appeals — Appellant failed to file proof of ordering transcripts of oral evidence as required under Rule 61.05(5) — Does the appellant’s misunderstanding of procedural rules justify non-compliance? — Court found appellant honestly confused but clarified that transcripts are mandatory unless parties agree otherwise or relief is granted — Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rules 61.05(5), 61.09(4)Evidence — Dismissal for delay — Respondent sought dismissal of the appeal under Rule 61.13(1) due to appellant’s failure to order transcripts — Should the appeal be dismissed for delay? — Court declined to dismiss, citing lack of prejudice to respondent, short delay, and appellant’s confusion as an unrepresented litigant — Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rules 61.13(1), 61.16(2.2)Estates and trusts — Administration of estates — Procedural compliance — Appellant, acting as estate trustee, appealed adverse findings regarding breach of fiduciary duties and revocation of appointment — What procedural directions should be imposed to ensure compliance with transcript requirements? — Court directed appellant to file proof of ordering transcripts or seek relief by a set deadline, failing which dismissal may be sought — Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rules 61.05(5), 61.09(4), 61.13(1)