Unsuccessful appeal by B from judgment finding him liable to MC for $126,000 and interest for inducing a breach of restraint of trade obligations given in favour of MC by second respondent, MC’s brother AC - MC and AC ran a housing business together under a franchise agreement with G J Gardiner Homes – MC bought AC’s share of business after they fell out - Agreement for sale and purchase of shares included restraint of trade clauses, restraining AC from marketing, construction, and sale of homes in area between October 2020 and February 2023 – AC started working with B in March 2021 – B then took steps to become a franchisee of another building company in same area - AC funded new business - Evidence suggested a joint business endeavour between AC and B -  

AC’s breach induced by B – AC would not have engaged in conduct that involved competition in breach of his restraint without having B to conceal his breach - B intentionally induced breach - Limiting AC’s involvement to property development company did not avoid a breach of restraint as activities of new operation and property development company were inherently interlinked - Clear from evidence B knew restraint being breached – Loss proved - Proper measure of damages for inducing breach of restraint required  assessment of loss actually occasioned to plaintiff, measured by a reduction in revenues from increased competition occasioned from breach of restraint – Evidence new company had significant share of new house building market in area - Measure of damages in HC incorrect - While measure of loss for AC’s breach contractual and B’s tortious, different approaches should lead to same award in this kind of case - Assessing damages based of value of restraint in original sale and purchase agreement wrong -  Damages should have been based on loss caused by illegitimate competition - While wrong test applied, B needed to show award was excessive - Evidence demonstrated modest award was reasonable - Judge concluded that AC and B were not jointly and severally liable and divided amount of damages award in half so that Peter was liable for only half of damages, that approach wrong in principle – Appeal dismissed. 

Partly successful appeal from Ontario CA – Concerned whether sentencing judge could consider time offender needed to complete rehabilitative programming when deciding sentence length – Also addressed factors sentencing judge could consider when deciding whether offender entitled to “enhanced credit” for time spent in detention – Criminal Code allowed sentencing judges to grant one day credit for each day offender detained in custody prior to trial and sentencing – Could also grant “enhanced credit" in certain circumstances at rate of 1.5 days for each day in custody – 

In 2018, JW, Indigenous man with significant cognitive impairments, living in group home, violently sexually assaulted staff member – JW pleaded guilty to sexual assault, threatening to cause death, and unlawful confinement – Arrested, in custody pending trial – Proceedings delayed as JW changed counsel three times and withdrew from three proposed plea agreements – 

In 2020, JW admitted to mental health facility for court-ordered assessment – In January 2021, ruled unfit to stand trial – Later ruled fit to stand trial, ultimately pleaded guilty in November 2021 – 

By sentencing, nearly four years passed since JW first charged – While detained in mental health facility, diagnosed with mental illness and developmental intellectual disabilities –  

Sentencing judge imposed nine-year prison sentence – Concluded longer sentence appropriate in part because JW’s cognitive impairments would increase time required to complete sexual offender programming – Judge denied enhanced credit for part of time JW spent in custody, given repeatedly changed counsel and failed to follow through with earlier plea agreements – 

CA dismissed JW’s appeal, except for correcting error in sentencing judge’s calculation of number of days JW in pre-sentence custody – 

SC unanimously allowed appeal in part, awarding additional credit for time JW detained at mental health facility – Also said JW’s delaying proceedings consequence of mental health, did not amount to wrongful conduct that justified denying enhanced credit – Appeal allowed in part.