Angelo P. Fazari

Two consolidated applications concerning the estate of the deceased, Itaf Karim.

The widower sought to invalidate a holograph will and annul the certificate of administration issued to the daughter.

The daughter sought access to the safety deposit box and other relief.

The court found that an undated draft will, for which a certificate of administration had been issued, was not the true will of the deceased.

The court determined that a dated Arabic will deposited in the safety deposit box on May 27, 2024, reflected the deceased's true testamentary intentions.

The court revoked the certificate of administration, declared the May 27, 2024 will as the valid will, and ordered distribution of the estate according to its terms, with the residue passing to the widower.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of her parked vehicle with the keys in the ignition and open alcohol.

She was arrested for impaired operation.

At the police station, after her counsel of choice could not be reached, she spoke with duty counsel.

At trial, she brought a Charter application alleging a breach of her s. 10(b) right to counsel, arguing she was funnelled to duty counsel.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police fulfilled their informational and implementational duties and the accused did not express dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

On the trial proper, the court found the accused was in care or control of the vehicle, as her actions created a realistic risk of danger, and that her ability to operate the vehicle was impaired.

The accused was found guilty of impaired operation and operating with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg, with a conviction entered on the over 80mg charge.

The respondent mother brought a motion for third-party production of the applicant father's complete employment file from the Canada Border Services Agency.

The father had brought a motion to change child support, claiming his income had decreased after resigning from the CBSA.

The mother sought the file to determine if he resigned to avoid termination for cause, which she argued would relate to intentional underemployment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the employment file was not relevant to explaining why the father left a higher-paying job for a lower-paying one.

This is a sentencing decision for Gordon Edwards, who pleaded guilty to four sexual offences against two minor victims (aged 12 and 15).

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence proposed three years.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and deterrence as primary in cases of sexual violence against children, citing R. v. Friesen.

Despite the offender's rehabilitative efforts and guilty plea, the court imposed a five-year global sentence, comprising three years for offences against one victim and two years consecutively for offences against the other, along with various lifetime and long-term prohibitions and registration requirements.

The Applicants sought a significant costs award following a 41-day family law trial where they were largely successful in obtaining sole custody, limited access for the Respondent, and termination of spousal support.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, engaged in unreasonable and bad faith litigation conduct, including pursuing meritless claims, missing court dates, and failing to provide disclosure.

The court found the Respondent's behavior reprehensible and awarded the Applicants $132,000.00 in costs, with a portion enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion to change regarding spousal support.

The Respondent was deemed the successful party in the underlying motion, as the court ordered indefinite support of $1,000 per month, contrary to the Applicant's position that no support was payable.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, finding the Respondent's offer more aligned with the final order.

The Applicant's self-representation and unreasonable position at trial contributed to increased costs for the Respondent.

Considering proportionality, reasonableness, and the Applicant's financial circumstances, the court awarded the Respondent $15,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable as support.

The applicant father and paternal grandmother brought a motion to change a 2012 final order that had granted custody to the respondent mother.

The children had been removed from the mother's care by child protection authorities in 2013 and placed with the applicants, where they thrived for over six years.

The mother, who was self-represented, repeatedly delayed the 41-day trial over 16 months by calling in sick without adequate medical corroboration and failing to attend court.

The court found a material change in circumstances, granted sole custody to the father, and limited the mother's access to one weekend per month due to her inconsistent visits.

The court also terminated the father's spousal support obligations and rescinded all arrears, noting the mother's failure to provide financial disclosure or participate meaningfully in the trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the self-represented respondent's motion, which sought various reliefs including a declaration of mistrial and judicial recusal, and ordered the lengthy custody trial to proceed.

The respondent had repeatedly caused delays by failing to attend court, not filing required materials for her motions, and not exercising ordered access.

The court found her conduct unreasonable and non-compliant with procedural rules, emphasizing the need to conclude the trial for the children's best interests and the efficient administration of justice.

The decision highlighted the balance between accommodating self-represented litigants and maintaining judicial control and fairness to all parties.

The Applicant Husband sought an order confirming the termination of spousal support effective July 29, 2008, based on an alleged agreement.

The Respondent Wife sought an order for spousal support commencing October 1, 2017.

The court found that the Respondent Wife did not release her claim to spousal support on a final basis in 2008, as the alleged agreement did not meet the formal requirements of a domestic contract under the Family Law Act and was made under circumstances of vulnerability and unfairness.

The court imputed income to the Applicant Husband due to intentional under-employment and ordered him to pay spousal support of $400 per month from October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2019, and $1,000 per month indefinitely commencing January 1, 2020.

The father and paternal grandmother brought a mid-trial motion to suspend spousal support payments to the self-represented mother due to her repeated and largely uncorroborated medical absences, which significantly delayed a protracted family trial concerning custody, access, and support.

The court found the mother's explanations for delays insufficient and noted the financial prejudice to the father, who was unlikely to be reimbursed for overpayments.

The motion was granted, temporarily suspending ongoing spousal support and limiting arrears enforcement, while also suspending the mother's child support obligations, to incentivize timely completion of the trial.

In a high-conflict family law proceeding, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking a payout from the children's RESP to cover the eldest daughter's student debt, transfer of the RESP control to herself, and a variation of the father's access to the youngest child based on OCL recommendations.

The applicant father opposed the relief and brought his own motion for access.

The court ordered one-third of the RESP funds to be paid out for the daughter's debt and transferred the remainder to the mother as trustee, finding jurisdiction to deal with RESPs on an interim basis.

The court declined to vary the existing access schedule pending trial but ordered the father not to enter the mother's property or record access exchanges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 on March 19, 2016.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings on the third trial date, alleging unreasonable delay.

The first trial date did not proceed due to lack of judicial resources (no per diem judge available).

The second trial date was adjourned because a Crown witness was unavailable due to a booked vacation.

The court calculated the net delay at 17 months and 8 days, which fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the accused failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings and that the case did not take markedly longer than reasonably expected.

The section 11(b) application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable grounds to investigate, the officer conducted an investigative detention and interrogation of the accused while the accused was naked without providing rights to counsel.

The court found breaches of section 8 (unreasonable seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court excluded the accused's verbal admissions, observations of impairment related to balance and coordination, and breath test results under section 24(2) analysis, finding that admitting such evidence would condone unacceptable police conduct and Charter violations.

However, observations regarding the accused's eyes and breath odour were admitted.

The over 80 charge was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to increase his access to the parties' three-year-old child.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer had conducted an investigation and recommended a gradual increase in access, noting that the father's doctor had no concerns about his pain medication management.

The respondent mother opposed the increase, citing ongoing concerns about the father's prescription medication use.

The court found the mother's concerns were unfounded and contrary to objective medical evidence, and granted the motion to increase the father's access.

The applicant moved for interim spousal support, seeking between $500 and $800 a month.

The parties had been married for 28 years and separated in 2013.

Both parties earned approximately $40,000 annually, with the respondent's income derived from a WSIB pension.

The applicant argued that additional income should be imputed to the respondent based on alleged cash work and unexplained deposits.

The court rejected the request to impute income, accepting the respondent's explanations that the deposits were from a cashed RRSP and transitional banking measures, and that he did not work for cash at his friend's shop.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought leave to proceed with custody motions under the Child and Family Services Act and interim custody relief.

The respondent sought an adjournment, and her counsel moved to be removed from the record.

The court granted leave for the applicant's motions and adjourned the interim relief motion on terms that maintained the children's residence with the paternal grandmother, where they had been living for three years.

The court also granted the respondent's counsel's motion to be removed from the record.

The decision highlighted the parents' ongoing high-conflict dynamic and psychological issues, which negatively impacted the children's well-being.

The appellant, an investment advisor, appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment of over $100,000 granted in favour of the respondents (his former parents-in-law).

The respondents had co-signed a loan and pledged securities for the appellant.

When the loan went into default, the respondents paid $13,877.36 to protect their securities and sued the appellant for damages, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in concluding the appellant had no arguable defence, as the default judgment awarded damages the respondents had not actually suffered and granted declaratory relief not sought in the Statement of Claim.

The default judgment was set aside and substituted with a judgment for the $13,877.36 actually paid by the respondents.

A police sergeant charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with greater than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following a collision with a motorcycle.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, including allegations of breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while the defendant's initial statements to the first officer were compelled under the Highway Traffic Act and therefore excluded, subsequent statements and observations provided sufficient grounds for arrest and breath demand.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and found her guilty of both charges based on the observations of multiple officers who knew her in a sober state, the breath test results, and the toxicological evidence.

The mother appealed orders granting sole custody to the father, terminating his support obligations, and requiring her to pay child support.

The motion judge had made these orders after finding the mother in contempt for failing to return the children to Ontario from Alberta, and had prohibited the mother from participating in the hearing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by deciding custody without a full evidentiary record, failing to consider the children's best interests (including the father's history of domestic violence), improperly delegating access decisions to the father, and varying support without adequate evidence or consideration of statutory factors.

The orders were set aside and a new hearing was ordered.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the timing of breath tests, the privacy of counsel consultation, the failure to video-record breath tests, and the video surveillance of the holding cell.

The court found no Charter violations with respect to reasonable and probable grounds, reasons for arrest, timing of breath tests, or counsel consultation.

The court found that while video surveillance of the holding cell raised privacy concerns, there was no infringement of the accused's section 8 rights in the specific circumstances, as the accused had a reduced expectation of privacy while in custody and no part of his genitals was visible on the recording.

The court rejected applications for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence, finding that admission of the breath test results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.