Annette Casullo

The applicant wife brought a motion to strike the respondent husband's pleadings due to his failure to comply with previous court orders regarding financial disclosure, child support, and carrying costs of the matrimonial home.

The respondent, who recently became self-represented, did not appear at the motion.

The court applied the three-part test under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules and found that the respondent's non-compliance was extensive, persistent, and wilful.

Concluding that no other remedy would suffice, the court struck the respondent's pleadings and ordered the matter to proceed to an uncontested trial, awarding full indemnity costs to the applicant.

Following a non-jury trial, the defendant, Mark Taylor, was found guilty of 18 Criminal Code offences, including human trafficking, financially benefitting from human trafficking, receiving material benefit from human trafficking, advertising, exercising influence, sexual assault, obtaining sexual services for consideration, and breaching recognizance.

The court considered the legal parameters, positions of the Crown and Defence, the Kienapple principle, the nature of the offences, the offender's background, victim impact statements, and sentencing principles, including the Lopez factors for human trafficking.

The Crown sought a 23-year sentence, while the Defence sought 9 years.

The court imposed a global custodial term of 15 years, deducting pre-sentence custody and a Duncan credit for harsh COVID-19 conditions.

Ancillary orders were issued, but restitution orders were dismissed due to lack of quantifiable pecuniary damages and evidence of the offender's ability to pay, directing complainants to civil avenues.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notices in two motor vehicle accident actions that were to be tried together.

The actions had already been set down for trial, requiring the plaintiff to seek leave under Rule 48.04(1).

The court denied leave, finding no evidence to explain the delay in bringing the motion and that the 'interests of justice' test was not met.

The court further held that even if leave were granted, it would not strike the jury notices, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that justice would be better served by a judge-alone trial.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking over $400,000 and possession of the defendant's property following a mortgage default.

The defendant disputed the quantum owed, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide payout statements and that the interest calculations were incorrect.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the exact amount owed and the credibility of the parties constituted a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court also declined to rule on the defendant's oral request to set aside deemed admissions from an unanswered Request to Admit, directing that a formal motion be brought.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged the failure to close was due to a lack of financing, while the defendants claimed it was due to deficiencies identified during the pre-delivery inspection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence on the reason for the breach of contract, combined with the prohibition on cross-examinations under Rule 76, created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The Crown applied to admit similar fact evidence against the accused, Anthony Holtorf, in a criminal trial for criminal harassment and child luring.

The evidence consisted of a 2008 peace bond and a 2015 guilty plea, both related to similar incidents of approaching young, unsupervised girls.

The Crown argued the evidence was probative of mens rea and to rebut anticipated innocent explanation defences.

The defence argued the evidence was remote, dissimilar, and highly prejudicial.

The court, applying the R. v. Handy framework, found significant similarities in the pattern of behaviour, despite temporal gaps and minor dissimilarities.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence, in establishing a pattern of behaviour and intent, outweighed its prejudicial effect, especially in a judge-alone trial.

The Crown's application to admit the similar fact evidence was granted.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and child luring after allegedly approaching young girls in a park.

Police placed him under investigative detention, searched him, and later arrested him, conducting a strip search and a search of his vehicle incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breaches, concluding the searches were lawful and justified by safety concerns.

While the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to a delay in fully advising the accused of his right to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's interest in adjudicating serious offences involving children on their merits.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from the operation of an escort service, the court convicted the accused on numerous human trafficking, procuring, obtaining sexual services for consideration, sexual assault, material benefit, advertising, and breach charges.

Applying a trauma-informed approach, the court accepted the evidence of several complainants describing coercive control, threats of exposure, exploitation of addiction, manipulation of work opportunities, and sexual access demanded by the operator of the business.

The court also admitted count-to-count similar fact evidence under the Handy framework, finding significant probative value that outweighed any prejudice in a non-jury trial.

The court acquitted on some trafficking and procuring counts where the Crown had not proven the necessary exploitation or control beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for dependent relief and a finding that a foreign divorce decree was valid, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $84,000, while the applicant argued the estate should bear the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the estate should pay, noting the litigation was driven solely by the applicant.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The applicant sought a declaration that his 2015 Iranian divorce from his deceased ex-wife was invalid, and claimed dependent relief against her estate.

The deceased and their children were killed in the Flight 752 crash.

The court found the divorce was valid under the common law 'real and substantial connection' test, as both parties were born, raised, married, and operated businesses in Iran.

The applicant's alternative claim for dependent relief was dismissed because he failed to provide supporting evidence and was denied leave to split his case by adducing fresh evidence after cross-examinations.

The applicant sought to join an application for directions regarding the interpretation of a will and the sale of a cottage with an application to pass estate accounts.

The court dismissed the request for joinder, finding that the issues were not interwoven, there was no risk of inconsistent findings, and joining the straightforward directions application with the complex and contested passing of accounts would cause undue delay and prejudice to the estate.

The defendants brought a motion to strike two statements of claim issued by the self-represented plaintiff, which alleged defamation and misrepresentation related to the transfer of cord blood samples.

The court struck the defamation claims without leave to amend, finding the allegedly defamatory statements were not made by the defendants and did not refer to the plaintiff.

The misrepresentation claims were struck with leave to amend for failing to plead material facts with sufficient particularity.

Several paragraphs were also struck as scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The court ordered the two actions consolidated.

Following a trial and an appeal that remitted the matter back for an assessment of damages on the counterclaim, the court assessed damages for the unlawful seizure of the defendants' business assets.

The court valued the seized heavy equipment at $415,000 and assessed business losses at $210,000.

After applying a set-off for the damages awarded to the plaintiffs in the main action, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $273,251.87.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured when she lost control of her vehicle on a snow-covered and icy municipal road, crossing the centre line and colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for failing to keep the road in a reasonable state of repair.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the municipality was in the midst of a winter weather event but failed to adequately treat the road, leaving it unplowed and subject to refreezing for several hours.

The court held that the road was in a state of non-repair, which caused the collision, and that the municipality failed to establish any statutory defences under the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff was found not to be contributorily negligent, and the municipality was held fully liable for the agreed-upon damages.

The applicants, co-executrixes of an estate, sought an order to withdraw the respondent's Notice of Objection to their appointment as Estate Trustees and to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing.

The court struck the Notice of Objection due to lack of supporting evidence.

However, despite the respondent's concerning conduct, including baseless claims, threats against legal professionals, and threats of violence, the court declined to declare him a vexatious litigant, finding his actions had not yet reached the persistent and unwarranted level required by the statute and established case law.

The court noted the recent nature of the respondent's actions and the importance of access to courts.

Costs incurred for estate administration were to be borne by the Estate on a full indemnity basis.

The Applicant sought to strike the Respondent's pleadings and vest title in two Ontario properties due to the Respondent's persistent non-compliance with numerous court orders regarding financial disclosure, support payments, and asset preservation.

The Respondent had failed to provide full disclosure of his overseas business interests and had accumulated significant arrears.

The court granted the vesting order to protect the matrimonial home from foreclosure and conditionally struck the Respondent's pleadings, allowing for limited participation on parenting issues if financial compliance was not met within 90 days.

The defendant, Brian Jeffery, brought a motion for leave to discontinue his third-party claim against the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and for a determination of costs, after the main action and other third-party claims had been dismissed.

The MTO refused to agree to a without-costs dismissal or discontinuance and brought a cross-motion for dismissal with costs for delay or summary judgment.

The court found that Jeffrey's third-party claim was not frivolous, vexatious, or pursued in bad faith.

Despite the MTO's insistence on costs, the court determined it was unreasonable for the MTO to do so, especially given Jeffrey's early offer to discontinue the claim.

The court granted Jeffrey's motion, discontinuing the third-party action against the MTO, and awarded partial indemnity costs in favour of Jeffrey.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant Township of Oro-Medonte to answer questions refused at an examination for discovery, produce Standard Operating Procedures, and re-attend discovery.

The defendant argued leave was required because the matter had been set down for trial.

The court found leave was not required as the motion record was served before the trial record, but would have granted leave regardless.

The court ordered the defendant to answer the refused questions, produce the requested documents, and have its representative re-attend discovery at its own expense, finding the requested information relevant to whether the defendant acted reasonably in its response to the downed hydro wires.

The applicants entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy the respondents' home.

The agreement included an escape clause allowing the respondents to accept a better offer if the applicants did not waive their conditions within 24 hours of notice.

The respondents received a higher offer and notified the applicants, who promptly waived their financing and inspection conditions.

The respondents claimed the applicants also needed to explicitly waive the escape clause itself, and sold the property to the second buyer.

The court found the respondents breached the contract, as the escape clause was merely a mechanism that was fulfilled when the applicants waived their conditions.

The court directed a reference to determine the quantum of damages, noting the applicants' duty to mitigate.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

He argued that his statements to the police at the scene of a single-vehicle collision were compelled under the Highway Traffic Act, and therefore the officer's observation of the smell of alcohol should have been excluded under the Charter.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the trial judge's finding that the officer detected the smell of alcohol independently of the compelled statements, specifically when the appellant was isolated in the police cruiser.

The appeal was dismissed.