Annamaria Enenajor

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt by the defendants, who breached a Mareva order by failing to disclose real property in Spain and denying ownership under oath.

The court finds that the appropriate sanction is to prohibit the defendants from dealing with the Spanish property and to require that net rental income from the property be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice until personal liability is determined.

The court also awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, with a set-off for costs on the motion to set aside the Mareva injunction.

This decision concerns the sanction for contempt and the allocation of costs following findings that the defendants failed to comply with a court order (the "Turnover Order") in a complex commercial dispute.

The court awards full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs for the contempt motion, reduced by 25% due to Charter breaches, and substantial indemnity costs to the defendants for a successful Charter-based stay motion.

The court also addresses the principles of set-off and mutuality of debt in the context of competing costs awards.

Police executed a search warrant at an apartment, finding a loaded firearm and various illicit drugs (crystal methamphetamine, powder cocaine, fentanyl).

Two defendants, Daylo Robinson and Dalton Wilson, were charged with multiple firearms and drug-related offences, as well as breaches of release orders.

The court assessed possession (personal, constructive, joint) based on circumstantial evidence, including the location of contraband, a digital scale, and a "daily diary" containing drug price lists.

The court found Daylo Robinson not guilty of firearms and drug charges but guilty of breaching his recognizance.

Dalton Wilson was found guilty of possession of cocaine and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of fentanyl, and breach of probation, but not guilty of firearms charges and fentanyl trafficking.

This endorsement addresses a contempt motion brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for non-compliance with a prior trial decision, and a cross-motion by the defendants to stay the contempt motion due to alleged Charter breaches by the plaintiffs.

The court found the defendants in contempt for several failures to comply with the original order, including withholding records and refusing to execute necessary assignments.

However, the court also found that the plaintiffs committed Charter breaches (failure of timely disclosure and case splitting) in their prosecution of the contempt motion, which curtailed the evidence that could be relied upon.

The stay motion was dismissed, but the scope of contempt findings was limited due to the excluded evidence.

The court ordered the defendants to comply with outstanding obligations within 30 days.

The Corporation of the City of Windsor sought to continue an injunction against "Persons Unknown" who were blocking the Ambassador Bridge.

The court had previously granted an interim injunction.

The City argued that protesters continued to breach municipal by-laws and the prior court order, and there was a risk of continued blockades.

The court found that the City established a strong prima facie case of by-law breaches and defiance of the prior order.

Applying the test for statutory injunctions under s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the court granted a permanent injunction, emphasizing the public interest in upholding the rule of law and that Charter rights do not protect unlawful conduct.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and uttering threats against his estranged wife, brought an application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code for production of Toronto Children's Aid Society records relating to the complainant's care of their children.

The applicant argued the records were relevant to the complainant's credibility and a motive to fabricate related to child custody.

The court found the first-stage test for likely relevance was met and reviewed the records.

At the second stage, the court largely dismissed the application, finding the undisclosed portions had a high privacy interest and lacked probative value, though it ordered the disclosure of a limited category of unredacted information.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and uttering threats, sought the appointment of the same judge to hear both a pre-trial third-party records application under s. 278.2 of the Criminal Code and the subsequent trial.

The court denied this request, clarifying that a case management judge is empowered to hear such pre-trial applications under s. 551.3 of the Criminal Code.

The decision emphasized that a trial judge can revisit pre-trial rulings made by a different judge if fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances arises, as explicitly permitted by s. 551.1(4) of the Criminal Code and common law principles.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claims against multiple respondents related to alleged breaches of exclusion and limitation of liability clauses in entertainment contracts.

The appellant raised an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias based on comments made by the motion judge regarding a public policy argument.

The Court of Appeal rejected the bias allegation, finding the judge's comments were directed at the merits of the unsupported public policy claim, not at the appellant's indigenous culture or beliefs.

The Court upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the contractual provisions and rejection of the unconscionability argument.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Toronto Transit Commission from implementing random drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive employees pending the outcome of a policy grievance arbitration.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as any privacy breaches or wrongful dismissals could be compensated with damages.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the significant public interest in transit safety and evidence of a workplace drug and alcohol problem.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the death of Karina Neff.

He did not deny killing the deceased but claimed he lacked the mens rea for murder and was therefore guilty of manslaughter.

The appeal raised two issues: (1) whether the trial judge erred in admitting a video-recorded statement of a witness with a disability under section 715.2 of the Criminal Code when the witness could not confirm the truth of the statement from present recollection; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in dismissing an application for mistrial after the Crown made prejudicial remarks in closing address regarding the defence's expert evidence and the issue of intent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the adoption test under section 715.2 is the same as under section 715.1 and does not require present recollection, and that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing a mistrial and addressing any prejudice through corrective jury instructions.