Bola Adetunji

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and other offences.

The accused, who has schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, had a stable year in the community with consistent medication compliance but exhibited profound negative symptoms and minimal insight into his illness.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the hospital's representative that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely become non-compliant with medication and decompensate without the Board's oversight.

The Board ordered that the accused's conditional discharge be maintained without changes.

The applicants, a mother and her minor daughter from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and confirming they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

The determinative issue was the availability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria.

The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RAD's decision unreasonable.

The RAD misstated and misapplied the first prong of the IFA test by effectively requiring the applicants to prove the minor child would be forced to undergo female genital mutilation, rather than assessing the risk on a balance of probabilities.

The RAD also erred on the second prong by failing to consider all relevant circumstances, including evidence of poor law enforcement, and by asking whether medical care was available in Nigeria generally rather than in the specific proposed IFAs.

The decision was set aside and remitted for redetermination.

The applicant, having been successful in a prior application concerning solicitor's fees, sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent solicitor acknowledged the applicant's entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, arguing the matter was uncomplicated and counsel's hours excessive.

The court agreed the matter was not complex and found the solicitor's interpretation of the retainer agreement regarding fees to be unconscionable.

Considering the principles of proportionality and that counsel's hours were somewhat excessive, the court awarded costs of $38,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes on an elevated scale, to be paid by the respondent within 30 days.

The accused brought an application for bail pursuant to s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code while on trial for 14 charges related to domestic violence.

The accused had been in custody since June 19, 2015.

The defence argued that material changes in circumstances—including weaknesses in the Crown's case revealed during the complainant's testimony and the passage of time—justified release.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the complainant's evidence remained credible and that the accused was not in a time-served situation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the passage of time constituted a material change in circumstances, the secondary ground for detention remained satisfied due to the accused's substantial history of breaching court orders and attempting to interfere with the administration of justice.

Following an assessment hearing where the applicant law firm successfully proved the respondent corporation was its client and owed outstanding legal fees, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found that the respondent's defence was arguable and that the applicant shared responsibility for the dispute by failing to obtain a written retainer agreement.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, significantly reducing the claimed hours and travel disbursements to reflect what would have been reasonable had a standard retainer agreement been in place.

The appellant sold a residential property to the respondent.

Prior to closing, the City of Toronto issued an order requiring the appellant to repair a defective retaining wall.

The appellant actively concealed this order from the respondent.

The trial judge awarded the respondent damages for the cost of repairs.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence, which the Divisional Court rejected as it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court applied the Housen standard of review, found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact, and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent brought motions seeking to dismiss an order permitting the assessment of a law firm's accounts, arguing there was no evidence of a retainer and that the assessment process was unavailable because some work involved a patent agent.

The court held the respondent failed to establish that no retainer existed and found the documentary evidence ambiguous without supporting evidence from the respondent’s principal.

The court further held that services performed by a patent agent under the supervision of a law firm may fall within assessable legal services.

The applicant’s motion to amend the respondent’s name in the order due to misnomer was granted.

The respondent’s motions were dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change child support.

The applicant mother, acting in person, sought costs of $1,799.33 after successfully obtaining an order for $20,937 in retroactive child support and $1,393 per month in ongoing child support.

The respondent father opposed any costs award.

The court found the mother was the successful party and awarded costs in the amount of $1,200, inclusive of fees and disbursements, payable within 60 days.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated March 14, 2012, seeking to adjust support based on the respondent father's actual income since 2012.

The father's income had increased significantly from $33,700 (the basis of the existing order) to $52,287 in 2012 and $140,727 in 2013.

The mother sought retroactive support adjustment, claimed the father owed $1,500 due to an improper FRO credit, and requested ongoing support based on $160,000 annual income.

The father opposed the retroactive award and sought a credit for alleged overpayment prior to the existing order.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to disclose his increased income and deliberately underpaying support.

In a custody dispute following a short marriage, the applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties’ young child and raised numerous allegations of abuse against the respondent father.

The court found the mother’s evidence unreliable, identifying inconsistencies between her oral testimony and written materials and concluding that the abuse allegations were unsubstantiated.

The court determined that the mother had deliberately removed the child from the father’s life, withheld information, and demonstrated an unwillingness to support the child’s relationship with the father.

Applying the best‑interests factors under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the father’s parenting plan to be more child‑focused and stable.

Sole custody was granted to the father with defined access to the mother, and the mother’s equalization claim was dismissed.