Anne E. London-Weinstein

The applicant mortgagee brought a motion for payment out of court of the proceeds from a municipal tax sale of a property.

The property was sold by the township for tax arrears, and the remaining funds of $94,444.92 were paid into court.

The court determined that the applicant had first priority as mortgagee and awarded it $78,528.35 for the mortgage, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The respondent mortgagor was entitled to the residual amount of $8,986.33.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim and dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's failure to advance the litigation, including failing to attend an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff's counsel also sought to be removed from the record due to an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as the plaintiff had retrieved its file and ceased communication.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel and gave the plaintiff 60 days to appoint new counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person, failing which the defendants could renew their motion to strike the claim.

The applicant, an alleged leader of the Freedom Convoy 2022, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He argued a material change in circumstances based on his five months in custody, health issues, and a new bail plan with four proposed sureties.

The court found a material change in circumstances and conducted a fresh review.

Despite the serious nature of the mischief and counselling charges, and new perjury charges arising from his first bail hearing, the court concluded that the proposed strict bail plan, which included relocating to Alberta and strong supervision by new sureties, adequately addressed the secondary and tertiary ground concerns.

The applicant was granted release on bail.

The applicant insurer brought an urgent motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding pending a judicial review of the LAT's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The applicant's newly retained counsel had scheduling conflicts with the set hearing dates.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and right to counsel of choice.

However, the court concluded the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as other counsel from the firm might be available or the presiding official could address fairness concerns at the hearing.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had been waiting for benefits.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant insurer brought an urgent motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) order that denied an adjournment of an upcoming hearing, pending a judicial review application.

The applicant argued that denying the adjournment violated procedural fairness and the right to counsel of choice, as newly retained counsel was unavailable for the scheduled dates.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried but concluded the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, noting other counsel from the firm might be available.

The court also found the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had been waiting for benefits.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The court determined costs following a motion and cross-motion regarding parenting time, child support, and financial disclosure.

Success was divided, with the moving party securing unsupervised parenting time and the responding party succeeding on issues of baby-proofing, COVID-19 protocols, child support, and financial disclosure.

Given the divided success and the moving party's failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure, the court declined to order costs to either party.

The applicant, charged with human trafficking and sexual assault offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained.

The applicant proposed a new surety who worked from home and could provide 24/7 supervision without internet access.

The court found this constituted a material change in circumstances that addressed the original bail judge's concerns regarding the secondary ground.

The court also found the original judge erred by violating the presumption of innocence in assuming the applicant would not follow conditions simply because he was charged with human trafficking.

The court concluded that a strict release plan with the new surety and a GPS monitor addressed both secondary and tertiary grounds, and ordered the applicant's release.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a known third-party suspect.

The Crown opposed, arguing there was no air of reality to the proposed evidence.

The court applied the sufficient connection test and found that, taking the proposed evidence at its highest, there was an air of reality linking the third party to the shooting.

The application was granted, allowing the defence to cross-examine Crown witnesses and lead evidence regarding the alternative suspect.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a statement provided by the accused, Donald Musselman, to police, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The defence challenged the statement's voluntariness and alleged breaches of Charter rights.

The court found that the interviewing officer undermined the accused's right to silence by suggesting his credibility would be diminished if he did not speak to police and later testified at trial.

Consequently, the statement was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was excluded from evidence.

The Crown brought a motion for certiorari and mandamus in a dangerous offender application, challenging the sentencing judge's decision to rule Victim Impact Statements (VIS) inadmissible without reviewing them.

The VIS related to uncharged conduct that had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Superior Court granted certiorari, finding that the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the VIS before ruling on their admissibility.

The court directed the sentencing judge to hear the VIS in a voir dire, emphasizing the broad range of information required in dangerous offender hearings and the procedural fairness owed to all parties, including victims.

The applicant, David Blackwood, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order for charges including robbery and choking.

The court found a material change in circumstances, triggering a de novo review.

Despite a strong surety and consideration of difficult jail conditions, the court determined that Blackwood's extensive history of non-compliance with court orders and criminal record indicated a substantial likelihood of re-offending.

The application for release was dismissed, and his detention was maintained.

The Father brought a motion seeking increased parenting time and disclosure of the child's information.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for child support, retroactive child support, income disclosure, and baby-proofing of the Father's home.

The court ordered three supervised visits for the Father, transitioning to unsupervised alternating weekend parenting time.

The Mother's request for a different supervisor was denied.

Temporary child support of $573 per month was ordered, with retroactive support deferred to a full evidentiary hearing.

Various orders regarding communication, safety measures, and disclosure were also made.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the Applicant (Father) for parenting time with his child.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court applied Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, considering factors such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' conduct, and access to justice.

While the Applicant was largely successful in obtaining parenting time, the court found the issues not complex and did not find bad faith on the Respondent's part, noting her language difficulties, change of counsel, and stated fear of the Father.

Given the Respondent's limited financial means and Legal Aid funding, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amount sought to $4,000 to ensure access to justice.

The respondent father sought to vary a 2016 final order regarding parenting time, alleging a material change in circumstances due to the children's aging and the mother's alleged withholding of time.

The applicant mother opposed, citing the father's unresolved addiction issues and arguing no material change.

The court found that the children's significant aging (from very young to 5 and 8 years old) constituted a material change.

The court granted a temporary, without prejudice variation to increase the father's parenting time, including overnights, but requested the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the children's views before a final order.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court also addressed child support, finding insufficient evidence to impute income to the father but granting the mother leave to return on the issue.

The applicant sought judicial review by way of certiorari of an Ontario Court of Justice decision to transfer a Provincial Offences Act prosecution, concerning charges under the Taxation Act, from a justice of the peace to a judge.

The applicant also challenged the standing of federal Crown counsel.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in the transfer and confirming the validity of the Crown's delegation of authority.

The court reiterated that certiorari is a discretionary remedy rarely granted in Provincial Offences Act matters.

Danielle Leblanc, initially charged with first-degree murder, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice after providing a statement that led to her common-law spouse's second-degree murder plea.

The court considered the unique circumstances of Leblanc being a victim of severe and prolonged domestic violence by the murderer, which significantly reduced her moral blameworthiness.

Despite the seriousness of obstructing justice in a murder investigation, the court granted a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, emphasizing proportionality and the limited application of general deterrence in cases involving battered women.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking parenting time with the child, who he had not seen since the parties' separation ten months prior.

The respondent mother sought supervised parenting time, alleging past abuse and mental health concerns regarding the father.

The court, applying the child's best interests principle and the maximum contact principle, found no sufficient evidence to warrant supervised access.

The court crafted a gradual step-up parenting schedule for the father, rejecting his proposed immediate extensive schedule as too abrupt, and dismissed the mother's request for supervision.

This is a costs endorsement following a dismissed contempt motion.

The Respondent father brought a contempt motion against the Applicant mother for withholding access to their children.

The father failed to attend the final hearing of the contempt motion, leading to its dismissal.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $44,732.89.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000 to the mother, considering the father's financial situation, the understandable actions of both parties given the children's wishes, and the principle that prohibitive costs should not bar access to justice in family matters.

The applicant, Michael Kilbride, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges including breaking into a private residence and assault.

The court found that the new bail plan, which included house arrest with his mother and cash pledges, did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a de novo hearing or to address the original concerns.

The applicant's extensive criminal record, history of failing to comply with court orders, and the surety's past inability to supervise him led the court to conclude that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention remained strong.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The Crown brought an application to remove the accused's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defence counsel's daughter and colleague had previously provided legal advice to the complainant upon her arrest for impaired driving.

The defence counsel intended to cross-examine the complainant using records from that impaired driving charge.

The court found that a solicitor-client relationship existed between the complainant and the firm, creating a clear conflict of interest.

The application was granted and counsel was removed to preserve the public perception of fairness in the administration of justice.