A. Farooq

The applicant, charged with human trafficking and drug and firearm offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 51-month delay.

The Crown argued that the delay was mitigated by defence delay and exceptional circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court deducted periods for defence delay and pandemic-related jury trial blackouts, but found the Crown failed to act reasonably promptly in seeking a direct indictment.

The net delay of 34 months and 12 days exceeded the 30-month ceiling, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partition and sale, the respondent sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant made unfounded allegations of dishonest acts against the respondent.

The court also noted the aggressive nature of the motion and the significant power imbalance between the parties.

Costs were fixed at $20,987.66.

The applicant brought a motion for the partition and sale of a property registered in the respondent's name, claiming a 50% beneficial interest pursuant to a Trust Agreement.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the property was her family home and the applicant had breached the agreement by failing to pay expenses.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant sought equitable relief with unclean hands and that crucial facts regarding the validity and interpretation of the Trust Agreement required a full trial with viva voce evidence.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault.

At trial, the appellant briefly denied the allegations in chief, which the trial judge found lacked detail and therefore gave little weight to his evidence under the W.(D.) framework.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that a denial of events will necessarily lack detail, and the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the evidence on this basis before properly applying the first two steps of W.(D.).

A new trial was ordered.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $243,400 obtained by the plaintiffs for unpaid loans.

The defendant claimed he was never served with the statement of claim and only learned of the action later.

The court found the defendant was personally served, failed to act promptly, and did not present an arguable defence.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

The applicant father sought joint custody, spousal support, and child support based on an imputed income of $26,000, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and support based on an imputed income of $73,000.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding the parents' acrimonious relationship made joint custody untenable.

The court imputed an income of $70,000 to the father, finding he was intentionally underemployed and had under-reported his income.

The father was ordered to pay $1,037 monthly in child support and $500 monthly in spousal support for seven years, along with retroactive support and $40,000 in costs.

The mother was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $1,338.

The plaintiffs, Nashaat and Taghreed Aly, claimed a partnership interest in a family grocery business, Nader Halal, operated by Adel Tohamy.

The court found a valid oral agreement from 2001 granting the Alys a 20% interest.

In a related family law application, Adel's former wife, Naiema, sought to set aside two separation agreements that released her claims to the family businesses and spousal support.

The court set aside both agreements under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act due to Adel's deliberate failure to disclose significant assets, unconscionability, and duress.

The court also found the defendants engaged in spoliation of evidence by destroying financial records and ordered the appointment of a receiver over the businesses pending the damages phase of the trial.

The moving party sought an order permitting him to secure a line of credit or mortgage on the jointly owned matrimonial home for $400,000 to fund legal fees for an upcoming trial involving family and corporate claims.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court found this to be a highly unusual case where encumbering the matrimonial home was justified, given the substantial other assets available to satisfy any potential judgment for the respondent.

The court granted the motion but limited the encumbrance to $250,000, subject to specific terms including that the funds be paid directly into counsel's trust account.