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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default, a default judgment of over $100,000, and related enforcement steps.

The plaintiffs, who were elderly, had pledged their securities and co-signed a loan for the defendant, who subsequently defaulted.

The court applied the Mountain View Farms test and found the defendant's delay in responding to the claim was deliberate and inexcusable, and his proposed defence lacked an air of reality.

The motion was dismissed, and the stay of garnishment was lifted.

Following dismissal of an application seeking issuance of a building permit for a lot created through a scheme found to constitute a “fraud upon the Planning Act,” the successful municipal respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant resisted both the scale and quantum of costs.

The court held that while the applicant’s conduct constituted a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Planning Act, it did not amount to criminal fraud warranting full indemnity costs.

Considering the complexity of the planning and real property issues, the long procedural history, and the conduct of the parties, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent municipality was awarded $40,000 plus HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought an order compelling the municipality to issue a building permit for a parcel created through a series of intra-family conveyances designed to circumvent the Planning Act.

The court examined whether the parcel constituted a valid lot and whether the municipality could refuse the permit under the Building Code Act on the basis of contravention of other applicable law.

The court held that the initial conveyances forming the root of title were fraudulent and constituted a deceit upon the Planning Act because the purported vendors were never owners of the land.

As a result, the deeds were invalid and could not create a valid chain of title or be cured by the 40‑year rule, Planning Act statements, or subsequent conversion to land titles.

The court concluded that the building permit application was the “fruit from the poisoned tree” and refused to grant relief.