Antal Joeseph Bakaity

The court considered whether the respondent, Marlene Francis, was unjustly enriched by the applicant, Vern Darchie Douglas, during their lengthy cohabitation.

Douglas claimed financial and other contributions to the property entitled him to compensation or a constructive trust.

The court found that while Douglas did not prove unjust enrichment regarding the down payment or ongoing mortgage payments, he was entitled to $18,000 for renovations and repairs that increased the property's value.

The court declined to find a joint family venture and awarded a monetary remedy rather than a proprietary interest.

The offender, Shane Springer, was sentenced following a trial where he was found to have caused significant head injuries to the complainant with a bag.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment and 24 months probation, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as aggravating factors (unprovoked attack, weapon use, lack of remorse, ongoing harm to victim) and mitigating factors (first offender, refugee claimant status, community contributions, positive pre-sentence report).

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the severity of the assault and lack of remorse, imposing six months imprisonment and two years probation, noting the potential for deportation.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of assault causing bodily harm against the defendant, Shane Springer, arising from an incident on September 20, 2021, involving the complainant, Ricardo Pilgrim.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The complainant's testimony, detailing significant head injuries caused by the defendant, was accepted as truthful and accurate.

The defendant's testimony, which offered an alternative explanation for the injuries and denied culpability, was rejected as untruthful and unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of plausibility.

The court found no reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt.

The appellant, Jatinder Singh Dhillon, appealed a final order in family litigation, raising four grounds: a resulting trust claim, quantification of net family property, private school costs under s.7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, and "netting down" a lump sum retroactive spousal support award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding no legal or palpable and overriding factual error.

The court emphasized that judges are not required to make tax adjustments for retroactive spousal support awards unless specifically requested and that such adjustments are discretionary, especially where non-disclosure of income could lead to a windfall.

The accused, N.B., was charged with sexual assault, exposing his genital organs to a person under 16, and sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose on the same complainant, A.W. N.B. pleaded not guilty and testified, denying the allegations.

The Crown argued that A.W.'s testimony was unshaken and corroborated.

The court found N.B. not credible but also identified significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the Crown's evidence, particularly A.W.'s account and the corroborating witnesses.

The court concluded that while "something bad" may have happened to A.W., the evidence was insufficient and unreliable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

N.B. was found not guilty on all counts.

The appellant, Donavan Locke, appealed orders from the Superior Court of Justice dismissing his second and third actions (alleging deceit and conspiracy against his former common-law partner and her lawyers regarding a property transfer) and dismissing his own motions (including a constitutional question and criminal contempt).

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motion judge's decision, affirming that summary judgment was appropriate due to the appellant's lack of evidence and damages.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motions, noting the constitutional question was "ill conceived" and there was no basis for criminal contempt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs to each respondent.

The Applicant sought costs on a full recovery basis after successfully striking the Respondents' pleading due to their bad faith conduct, including deliberate non-disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The Respondents argued for no costs or a significantly reduced amount.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, finding the Respondents' conduct warranted a punitive award, but reduced the claimed amount due to some excessive hours and the abandonment of a contempt motion.

The costs were awarded jointly and severally against all Respondents due to their concerted efforts to obstruct disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the pleadings of the respondent and two added respondents for persistent and deliberate non-compliance with numerous court orders.

These orders included requirements for financial disclosure, payment of spousal support and costs, and adherence to preservation orders related to the sale of the matrimonial home.

The court found the respondents' conduct to be in bad faith, rising to the level of fraudulent misconduct, aimed at frustrating the applicant's financial claims.

Given the egregious nature of the breaches and the futility of lesser remedies, the court granted the motion, striking the respondents' pleadings and allowing the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

This endorsement determines the quantum and payer of costs following a dismissed application by Sandra Krolewski and Edward Medeiros to set aside the 2015 Will of Eduardo Medeiros.

The respondent, Maria Natalia Moniz, was the successful party in the main application.

The court awarded Moniz partial indemnity costs of $46,349.74, reducing the amount sought due to proportionality and duplication of counsel.

The costs were ordered to be paid by the applicants, not the estate, as their will challenge based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence was found to be unjustified and not supported by their own expert's opinion.

The Applicant sought divorce, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, an equalization payment, and a declaration of 50% beneficial ownership in the matrimonial home based on resulting or constructive trust.

The Respondent contested spousal support entitlement and the ownership claim, arguing for a different valuation date for equalization and reimbursement for property costs.

The court determined the valuation date, denied the beneficial ownership claim, calculated equalization, and awarded retroactive and ongoing non-compensatory spousal support to the Applicant, while also ordering the return of RRSP funds and reimbursement of occupation rent to the Respondent.

Danny Duarte applied in Newfoundland and Labrador to vary a 2011 Ontario child support order, seeking a reduction based on decreased income.

The Newfoundland court issued a provisional order reducing his obligations.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice, as the court of competent jurisdiction where the children reside, heard evidence from Sarah Duarte to determine whether to confirm, vary, or dismiss the provisional order.

The court found Danny Duarte failed to disclose income from a business and imputed a higher income for 2016, and also adjusted his contribution to section 7 expenses.

The provisional order was confirmed with variations, increasing Danny Duarte's child support and section 7 contributions for certain years.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for delay.

The action arose from two separate events in 2009—an alleged slip and fall accident and a motor vehicle accident—and had been ongoing since 2011.

A timetable was imposed in 2015 requiring completion of discoveries, mediation, and trial set-down by specific dates.

The appellant failed to comply with the timetable.

The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis.

This is a costs decision following a six-day trial on a motion to change dealing with custody and access of a child.

The applicant was primarily successful at trial and had served an Offer to Settle that was not accepted by the respondents.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering the applicant's success, the Offer to Settle, the respondents' unreasonable positions at trial, and the respondents' modest financial means.

The court rejected arguments that the respondents' financial circumstances should shield them from a costs award, while still moderating the quantum to reflect fairness and reasonableness.

A costs endorsement following motions heard on December 21, 2016, in a family law matter.

The applicant mother sought to vary an existing access order to provide for supervised access and specific telephone access terms.

The respondent father sought to expand his access and remove conditions.

The court granted the applicant's relief in part and denied the respondent's motion entirely.

The applicant sought costs of $4,977.67 on a partial recovery basis, while the respondent agreed costs should be awarded but proposed $1,500.00.

The court awarded costs of $3,700.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable in three instalments over time, considering the respondent's financial circumstances and the reasonableness of the time and expenses incurred.

The applicant mother sought to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, including sole custody and supervised access for the respondent father.

The respondent father sought to expand his unsupervised access and remove conditions from an existing temporary order.

The court found exceptional circumstances existed warranting implementation of supervised access and restricted telephone contact recommendations, but denied the mother's request for sole custody and other non-access relief.

The father's motion for expanded unsupervised access was also denied.

The applicant father sought to reduce child support payments following his termination from employment in August 2013.

The respondent mother sought a retroactive increase in table child support and arrears of section 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances and imputed income to the father of $47,750 annually (actual retirement income of $37,750 plus $10,000 for consulting work), resulting in table child support of $431 per month from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020.

The court awarded arrears of $1,272 for table child support and $1,857.35 for section 7 expenses (tutoring only), payable at $150 per month.

The court also awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondent for obtaining proper disclosure.