Bonnie R. Warkentin

This case involves the sentencing of David Voss for his significant role in a large-scale art fraud scheme involving forged paintings attributed to the renowned Indigenous artist Norval Morrisseau.

The court emphasized the profound and far-reaching damage caused by the fraud, extending beyond financial losses to the cultural and spiritual identity of Indigenous art and artists.

Voss was sentenced to five years in a penitentiary for two charges of fraud.

Other charges against Voss and all charges against co-accused Diane Champagne were withdrawn.

The court declined to order restitution due to the immense complexity of identifying all victims and quantifying losses, deeming it unmanageable and detrimental to the administration of justice.

A forfeiture order was made for the identified forged artwork.

The plaintiff, a construction company, sued the defendant for unpaid services and materials related to a renovation project.

The defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract, poor workmanship, and lost rental income.

The court found no binding fixed-price contract, determining it was a time and materials project.

While the plaintiff's hourly rate was deemed reasonable, the claimed hours were reduced due to discrepancies.

The defendant's counterclaim for deficiencies was partially successful for poor workmanship in the bathrooms, but claims related to electrical panel, hot water tank, furnace, and lost rental income were dismissed due to the defendant's instructions for cost-cutting or her own responsibilities.

The plaintiff was awarded a net amount after set-off for the successful portion of the counterclaim.

This class action concerned historical sexual abuse perpetrated by Ralph Rowe, an Anglican priest and Scout leader, against Indigenous boys in remote communities.

The court approved a $13.25 million settlement, which included a unique trauma-informed claims process with two tracks (simplified Schedule A up to $140,000, and more rigorous Schedule B up to $350,000).

The settlement also provided for apologies from the Anglican Church of Canada and Scouts Canada, and funding for counselling.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, emphasizing the benefits of timely resolution and the innovative, claimant-centric claims protocol.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of an application alleging a contravention of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The respondent, who successfully defended the application, sought costs on an actual or substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for a significantly lower amount.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, applied the principle of reasonableness.

Despite the respondent's offer to settle for dismissal without costs, the court found the quantum sought by the respondent excessive given the limited complexity and duration of the proceeding.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, increased due to the respondent's offer to settle, for a total of $15,000.00 to be paid by the applicant.

The plaintiff sued the defendant plastic surgeon for medical malpractice, alleging he breached the standard of care by failing to assess her and obtain x-rays within 7 to 10 days following surgery for a fractured finger.

The plaintiff claimed this delay prevented an immediate repeat surgery and necessitated a more complex corrective procedure months later.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no established standard of care requiring a general plastic surgeon to conduct a post-operative assessment and x-rays within the 7 to 10-day window.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, a municipal councillor, contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) by participating in a council vote to indemnify himself and other councillors for legal expenses incurred in responding to a Human Rights Tribunal application.

The applicant argued the respondent had a pecuniary interest and sought to have his seat declared vacant.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's actions did not contravene the MCIA, particularly under the s. 4(i) exception for benefits related to a member's duties, and that the indemnification by-law was mandatory.

The court also noted that even if there was a contravention, the severity claimed was not warranted, and the respondent acted in good faith.

This motion addressed the quantum of interest owing on litigation loans obtained by the plaintiff, Rudolph Steinberg, from BridgePoint Financial Services Limited.

The plaintiff argued the high interest rates were unconscionable and sought a cap on the interest.

The court found the loan agreements contractually sound, noting the plaintiff received legal advice and acknowledged the terms.

While largely rejecting the unconscionability argument, the court granted a reduction of $75,000 in accrued interest due to legitimate delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, balancing this against the plaintiff's own conduct which had exacerbated the accrual of interest.

This criminal trial concerned 17 counts of domestic abuse allegations against the accused, Leon Giardino, involving his former spouse, Santina Giardino, between 2013 and 2021.

Charges included assault, assault with a weapon, choking, mischief, uttering threats, and failing to comply with release orders.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing conflicting testimony.

The judge found the accused guilty of 10 counts, including multiple assaults, assault by choking, uttering threats, and one count of failing to comply with a release order, while acquitting on other charges due to insufficient evidence or reasonable doubt.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit evidence of similar acts and prior discreditable conduct of the accused in a domestic violence case involving multiple assault charges.

The defence opposed the admission, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial and presumptively inadmissible.

The court, applying the principles from *R. v. Z.W.C.*, denied the Crown's application.

It found that the probative value of the proposed evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect, as it largely constituted hearsay or vague observations not directly describing Criminal Code offences, and would risk impermissible bad character reasoning.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Jonathan Yellowhead for manslaughter, following his conviction after a two-week trial.

The victim's death was attributed to hypothermia, blunt facial trauma, and ethanol intoxication.

The Crown sought 8-12 years of incarceration, while the defence proposed 3-5 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the accused's violent criminal history, and significant mitigating Gladue factors related to his Indigenous background and the intergenerational impacts of residential schools.

The court also granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody due to "abhorrent conditions" in jail.

The final sentence imposed was five years and four months incarceration, with 51 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 13 months remaining to serve, followed by a three-year probation order with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a finding of professional misconduct by the Discipline Committee, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The appellant argued for no costs or a maximum of $5,000, claiming the appeal raised an issue of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected the no-costs argument, noting the appellant re-litigated factual issues, attacked the integrity of the discipline process, and constantly evolved his grounds of appeal, which increased the respondent's costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $35,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant biological mother appealed a temporary order granting the respondent customary caregiver specified parenting time with the child.

The appellant also sought to stay the caregiver's application under the Children's Law Reform Act, arguing the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over matters engaging the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

Applying recent appellate jurisprudence, the Superior Court held that the Ontario Court of Justice retains jurisdiction to hear such proceedings and oversee customary care disputes.

The appeal to stay the application was dismissed, and the temporary parenting time order, as previously varied, was continued.

The applicants sought partition and sale of a jointly owned recreational property under the Partition Act.

The respondents opposed, arguing a co-ownership agreement governed the dispute and that the applicants acted in bad faith.

The court found the co-ownership agreement inoperable regarding fair market value and tax implications, and that the respondents were not acting reasonably or in good faith by arbitrarily determining the property's value.

The court exercised its discretion to grant the application for sale.

The appellant, a licensed professional engineer, appealed a Discipline Committee decision finding him guilty of professional misconduct for providing engineering services to the public without a certificate of authorization and for breaching an agreement not to provide outside services while employed by the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Discipline Committee made no palpable and overriding errors in its factual findings.

The Court also confirmed that under the Professional Engineers Act, all licensed professional engineers require a certificate of authorization to offer or provide services to the public.

Finally, the Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding procedural unfairness, bias, and abuse of process.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to amend her pleadings, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $37,000.

The plaintiff argued the amount was excessive and proposed $20,000.

The court noted the complexity of the motion but found the defendant's claimed costs, which were nearly double the plaintiff's full indemnity costs, could not be justified.

The court awarded the defendant costs in the amount of $22,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The accused was charged with manslaughter following the death of a 17-year-old victim whose body was found in a park.

The victim died from hypothermia, blunt facial trauma, and ethanol intoxication.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and DNA, to prove the accused assaulted the victim before leaving him in freezing temperatures.

The defence argued the police investigation was flawed and pointed to alternate suspects.

The court rejected the alternate suspect theories, finding the circumstantial evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to the accused's guilt.

The court concluded the assault was a substantial contributing cause of death and found the accused guilty of manslaughter.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to withdraw an admission that she had not applied for long-term disability benefits and to add a claim for relief from forfeiture.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the amendments sought to add new causes of action that were statute-barred.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to meet the test to withdraw an admission under Rule 51.05 and that the proposed amendments constituted new claims outside the limitation period.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether certain bargaining proposals were central or local issues under the School Boards Collective Bargaining Act.

Following the Board's decision, the parties reached an agreement that the disputed issues were central, resolving the underlying conflict.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for judicial review as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the matter because the Board's procedural decision did not set a dangerous precedent requiring appellate intervention.

The accused, Marshall Hardy-Fox, pleaded guilty to kidnapping and accessory after the fact in connection with the death of Lee Chiodo, who was kidnapped and murdered over a drug debt by co-accused David Hui and Musab Saboon.

Hardy-Fox, a drug addict with no prior criminal record, acted as the driver during the kidnapping and later cooperated with the police, testifying against Hui and Saboon.

The Crown sought a total sentence of 6-8 years, while the defence argued for time served (21 months) plus probation, emphasizing Gladue factors and the accused's cooperation.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the drug-related nature of the offences and the use of a firearm, alongside significant mitigating factors such as the accused's lack of record, early guilty plea, remorse, assistance to the prosecution, and Indigenous background (Gladue factors).

The judge imposed a sentence of 3 years and 8 months (44 months) for kidnapping and 2 years concurrently for accessory after the fact.

With 21 months credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, the remaining custodial sentence was 23 months, followed by a 3-year probation order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of her action against the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board and a former police sergeant.

The action was dismissed in 2018 due to delay, but the defendants had initially consented to setting it aside before withdrawing consent.

The court found that the plaintiff had a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was largely attributable to her former counsel's inadvertence and the defendants' own delays.

The court also found no significant actual prejudice to the defendants.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was granted.