Annette Casullo

Following the dismissal of their minimum evidentiary threshold motion, the applicants abandoned their application challenging the validity of the deceased's will on grounds of undue influence and incapacity.

The court determined costs of the abandoned application.

Finding that the will challenge was entirely meritless from the outset and not prompted by the testator's actions or reasonable public policy considerations, the court ordered the applicants to pay the primary respondent's costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $80,000.

The other respondents were ordered to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff, a highly successful financial planner, was dismissed for cause by the defendant bank based on allegations of forwarding confidential emails, processing trades before obtaining written authorization, and backdating documents.

The court found the employer's investigation was deeply flawed, biased, and failed to establish just cause for termination.

The employer's bad faith conduct, including filing a regulatory Notice of Termination that falsely claimed the plaintiff was dismissed for cause, effectively ended her career in the financial industry.

The court awarded 16 months' reasonable notice, substantial damages for loss of earning capacity, aggravated damages for mental distress, and punitive damages to punish the employer's reprehensible conduct.

The employer was also ordered to correct the regulatory filing.

Following the dismissal of the Township's application for an injunction and the granting of the respondents' cross-application for a fill permit, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs and disbursements including non-litigation expenses.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, excluded non-litigation expenses, and awarded the respondents $31,193.68 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant, a prospective municipal election candidate, brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction staying a Notice of Trespass issued by the respondent Township following a protest she organized.

The Notice barred her from municipal properties, which would prevent her from filing her election nomination in person.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue regarding her freedom of expression, irreparable harm to her electoral participation and reputation, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant given the lack of evidence of misbehaviour.

The court granted the injunction and directed the Township to take no further steps against the applicant under its Citizen Code of Conduct pending the main application.

The plaintiff environmental remediation company sued the defendant property owner for $157,941.43 in unpaid invoices.

The defendant counterclaimed for $650,000, alleging the plaintiff over-remediated the property to a higher environmental standard than necessary.

The court found the property was highly contaminated due to a broken sewer pipe and lack of interceptor maintenance by the defendant's tenant.

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the extensive remediation was required and dismissed the over-remediation counterclaim.

Judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, plus contractual interest of 26.7% per annum based on the parties' course of dealing.

During a trial for drug trafficking, the accused brought a Charter application alleging his s. 8 rights were breached by the search of his cell phone.

The accused sought to excise several portions of the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, arguing they were erroneous or misleading.

The court excised certain paragraphs relating to prior simple possession charges but retained references to the accused's prior proceeds of crime convictions and the officer's opinion on the logistics of drug trafficking.

The court concluded that the excised ITO still provided sufficient credible evidence to justify the search warrant.

In the alternative, the court held that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to correct the misnomer of several John Doe defendants, identifying them as specific treating physicians and a wound care provider (ParaMed).

The underlying action involved allegations of medical malpractice relating to the development and failure to treat the deceased's bedsores at various care facilities.

The proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing it was an attempt to add parties after the expiry of the strict two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

The court granted the motion, finding that the pleadings were drafted with sufficient particularity such that the 'litigation finger' pointed squarely at the proposed defendants, and that a properly informed defendant would have recognized they were the target of the allegations.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendants.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing his guilty plea was involuntary and the result of ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.

He alleged that his counsel forced him to sign a damaging affidavit for a s. 276 application and improperly advised him about the trial judge's potential bias.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable given the overwhelming evidence against the appellant, including text messages and counselling records.

The court concluded that the appellant failed to establish professional incompetence or a miscarriage of justice.

A township sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from depositing fill on their property without a permit under the municipal fill by-law.

The respondents brought a counterapplication seeking a declaration that the by-law was invalid, or alternatively that they had complied with the permit requirements and a fill permit should issue.

The court found the by-law valid but held that the township acted ultra vires by requiring the applicant to verify aviation safety standards that fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The court ordered the township to forthwith issue the fill permit and dismissed the township's injunction application.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment arising from the defendants' failure to close on the purchase of a residential property for $1,900,000.

The defendants admitted the breach but argued the matter was not suitable for summary judgment and that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, holding that the plaintiffs acted reasonably in reselling the property and in settling a downstream claim from the vendors of a second property the plaintiffs could not close on due to the defendants' breach.

Summary judgment was granted for $556,535.41, comprising the difference in sale price, carrying costs, the forfeited deposit on the second property, and the settlement amount paid to the second vendor.

A stay of enforcement pending the third-party action was denied.

The offender, a 35-year-old first-time offender and primary caregiver to her son, was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of cannabis for the purpose of selling.

The police found over 1 kg of cocaine in her backpack and additional cocaine and fentanyl concealed in her body.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence proposed 3 to 5 years.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drugs against mitigating factors including her lack of a criminal record, remorse, and family circumstances.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment.

The applicant mother and respondent father co-signed a mortgage to help the applicant's son and the respondent's daughter purchase a home.

Title was taken as tenants in common.

After the couple separated, the applicant sought to remove the respondent from title, arguing she held her interest in trust for her son, who made the down payment and mortgage payments.

The respondent claimed he held his interest in trust for his daughter.

The court found that the property was held in a resulting trust for the son, as the respondent was added to title solely to assist with mortgage qualification and contributed no value.

The application was granted, and the applicant was declared entitled to the full proceeds of the property's sale.

The Town of Ajax sought an order requiring the respondents to demolish and remove above-grade construction carried out without a building permit at 599 Kingston Road West, Ajax.

The respondents acknowledged the unpermitted construction but resisted demolition, arguing they should be allowed to continue obtaining the requisite Record of Site Condition (RSC).

The property had a history of soil contamination from its prior use as an automotive facility.

The respondents had entered into a Conditional Building Permit Agreement allowing only below-grade work pending RSC approval, but proceeded to construct above-grade elements without authorization.

Despite multiple warnings, stop work orders, and a mandatory injunction, construction continued.

The court found the respondents' conduct was a calculated decision by an experienced developer to circumvent regulatory requirements and ordered demolition as the only appropriate remedy to enforce building code compliance and protect public safety.

The applicants challenged the validity of the deceased's 2019 and 2020 wills on grounds of undue influence and testamentary incapacity.

The respondents brought a motion arguing the applicants had not met the minimum evidentiary threshold (MET) required to challenge a will.

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the MET.

Medical evidence demonstrated the testator had no cognitive decline and was fully capable.

Evidence of undue influence was based on speculation and supposition rather than concrete facts.

The respondent's motion was granted and the applicants' motion for further production was dismissed.

Following a seven-day trial, the accused was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against his niece and nephew, contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

Two counts of sexual assault were conditionally stayed.

The sentencing decision addresses the appropriate punishment for non-penetrative sexual contact with child victims in a position of trust.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less one day concurrent with five months, followed by two years probation, along with ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA registration, and contact prohibition orders.

Sentencing decision involving repeated sexual and physical abuse of two child complainants over extended periods, including grooming, abuse of trust, forcible confinement, choking, and unprotected sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy.

The court applied the Gladue and Ipeelee framework to an Indigenous offender with severe intergenerational trauma, childhood abuse, racism, addiction, and prior criminal involvement, while emphasizing the primacy of denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718.01 and 718.2 for child sexual offences and the Supreme Court's direction in Friesen.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including prolonged abuse, trust relationships, significant physical and psychological harm, and the complainants' ages, but gave mitigating weight to the offender's Indigenous background, guilty plea on part of the indictment, and remorse.

A global sentence of 18 years was reduced to 15.5 years, with 770 days' credit for pre-sentence custody and lockdown conditions, plus ancillary lifetime protective orders.

The court considered an application to remove the estate trustees of Lillian Mary O’Neill’s estate, appoint successors, and require the passing of accounts.

The court found that the current trustees, Dianne and Andrea, were no longer neutral and had failed in their duties, particularly in light of delays, conflicts of interest, and lack of transparency.

The court ordered their removal, the appointment of Julie O’Neill and Karen Wolfe as successor estate trustees, and required the former trustees to pass their accounts.

Costs were awarded to the applicants.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by Arista Homes (Boxgrove Village) Inc. for forfeiture of a deposit after a failed real estate transaction.

The defendant, Ding Ding, sought relief from forfeiture.

The court applied the test for relief from forfeiture, finding the deposit proportionate and no unconscionability.

The motion was granted and the deposit forfeited to Arista.

The Township of Adjala-Tosorontio sought an interim and permanent injunction against the respondents, Timothy Saunders and Alvin Lindhorst, to prohibit the placement of waste and derelict vehicles on their property, citing violations of the Property Standards By-Law.

The respondents argued the application was statute-barred under the Building Code Act and claimed legal non-conforming rights and agricultural zoning.

The court dismissed the respondents' arguments, finding the application was not time-barred as it was an enforcement action under s. 15 of the Act, not a prosecution under s. 36(8).

The court also found the property was zoned "Open Space Conservation" without non-conforming status for a junk yard.

The Township's application for an injunction was granted, ordering the property to be cleaned up, and inviting submissions on costs.

The applicant moved to set aside an order that removed him as estate trustee and appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), arguing he lacked notice of the underlying contempt motion.

The court found the applicant had proper notice through his former counsel but chose not to attend.

The court further held that even if notice was improper, the appointment of an ETDL was necessary given the adversarial relationship between the co-trustees and the applicant's improper administration of the estate.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.