Bonnie R. Warkentin

Following a 25‑year marriage, the parties disputed spousal support quantum, child support for an adult child, ownership of a Québec cottage property, and equalization of net family property.

The court determined the separation and valuation date and addressed spousal support using the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines in circumstances where the payor’s income exceeded $350,000.

Income was imputed to the recipient spouse due to limited job‑search efforts, and spousal support was fixed with a future review.

The court found unjust enrichment principles potentially supported a proprietary claim by the respondent in the cottage property but held that Ontario lacked jurisdiction to determine title to land in Québec.

A temporary stay of the equalization calculation was ordered pending resolution of the Québec ownership proceeding.

The applicants, who were self-represented accused in a complex multi-party jury trial for bid-rigging, brought an application under s. 650(2)(b) of the Criminal Code to be absent from portions of the trial that did not directly relate to the charges against them.

They argued that attending the entire 15-week trial would cause significant financial and personal hardship.

The Crown opposed their absence unless strict conditions were met.

The court found that while the applicants established substantial cause for their absence, their self-represented status posed a risk to trial fairness and efficiency.

The court granted the application on the strict condition that the applicants retain counsel to be present in court during their absence and sign a fully informed waiver.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought orders restraining the father from contacting the mother and suspending his access to the child due to domestic violence, substance abuse concerns, and threatening conduct.

Evidence included numerous police incidents involving domestic violence and a forensic psychiatric assessment indicating a high risk of future spousal assault.

The mother had separated from the father and relocated to an undisclosed location for safety.

The court held that the child’s best interests required placement with the mother under the society’s supervision and suspension of the father’s access until specified conditions were met.

The decision emphasized the relevance of domestic violence and parental conduct toward a partner when assessing child protection risks and access.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection agency brought motions seeking disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to both parents and an order for a parenting assessment under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents consented to limited disclosure of records but opposed broader disclosure and objected to a parenting assessment before a care and custody hearing.

The court reviewed the statutory framework governing assessments and the criteria under Ontario Regulation 25/07.

Given the history of domestic violence, lack of cooperation with child protection authorities, and concerns regarding parenting insight and the children’s best interests, the court held that both the records disclosure and parenting assessment were necessary.

The motions were granted.

The applicant brought a fourth motion seeking to have the respondent found in contempt for allegedly breaching a prior order restricting him from receiving income or benefits from his corporation while in default of spousal support obligations.

The respondent was significantly in arrears and had previously been found in contempt related to enforcement of support and security obligations.

The applicant argued that the respondent violated the order by receiving corporate-paid benefits including a vehicle, cell phone, and insurance coverage.

The court held that these items were legitimate business expenses necessary for the operation of the respondent’s real estate business and did not constitute prohibited benefits within the meaning of the earlier order.

The motion for contempt was dismissed and costs were reserved to the judge hearing the ongoing motion to change support.

Following a bifurcated civil trial in which the defendants were found not liable for historic abuse allegations and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, the court considered the defendants’ request for costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $145,000 arising from complex litigation involving extensive documentary disclosure and numerous expert reports.

The court reviewed the purposes of costs awards and the relevant factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the defendants’ settlement offers and the litigation’s complexity.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and fairness, the court declined to award the full amount requested but fixed costs in a substantial sum reflecting the defendants’ success and the burden of defending the allegations.

Sentencing decision following convictions for human trafficking of a minor, living on the avails of prostitution of a person under 18, assault, and breaches of recognizance.

The offender lured a vulnerable 17‑year‑old to another city under the guise of a romantic relationship and forced her into prostitution across multiple cities, retaining the proceeds and using violence and threats to maintain control.

The court considered mandatory minimum sentences under the Criminal Code for trafficking and procuring offences, along with aggravating factors including the victim’s age, exploitation, violence, and extensive commercial sexual activity.

Despite the offender’s youth and limited prior record, denunciation and deterrence were emphasized.

A global sentence of six years’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for time served, with ancillary orders including sex offender registration, a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and no‑contact provisions.

A parenting and child support dispute between separated parents concerning custody, school choice, travel, and income determination for support purposes.

The court found both parents capable and ordered joint custody with a shared parenting arrangement while granting the mother final decision-making authority if disputes arose, subject to specific limits regarding the child’s school and relocation distance.

The court addressed travel arrangements allowing the child to visit extended family abroad and imposed procedural requirements for travel consent.

In assessing child support, the court imputed additional income to the self‑employed father after reviewing deductions and rental property income.

The father was ordered to pay monthly child support and full section 7 expenses, and costs were awarded to the mother.

The accused brought an application under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking dismissal of drug trafficking charges for unreasonable delay.

Approximately 27 months had elapsed between the laying of charges and the scheduled trial date.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin and considered the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused.

The court found that the majority of the delay constituted inherent time requirements of the case, and that the remaining delay—largely attributable to witness availability and scheduling issues—amounted to approximately eight months.

Although some prejudice was inferred and partially established, the delay fell within acceptable limits and was outweighed by society’s interest in adjudicating serious criminal charges on their merits.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault under s. 271(1) of the Criminal Code, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, misapplied the principles in R. v. W.(D.), improperly relied on a prior statement to police, and failed to recuse himself due to an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellate court reviewed the trial judge’s credibility findings and determined that although the trial judge made minor factual errors in describing certain circumstances, those errors were not overriding and did not undermine the conviction.

The court found that the trial judge properly used inconsistencies in the appellant’s prior statement only to assess credibility and correctly applied the Browne v. Dunn rule and the reasoning in R. v. Truong when drawing inferences about new allegations raised in the appellant’s testimony.

The court also held that the W.(D.) framework had not been misapplied and that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the complainant’s spouse having previously served as a judicial colleague of the trial judge.

The conviction was upheld.

Multiple accused charged with bid-rigging and conspiracy to bid-rig under the Competition Act and Criminal Code brought applications under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The prosecution involved a large multi‑accused investigation into coordinated bids for federal government IT contracts and involved extensive disclosure and lengthy preliminary inquiry proceedings.

The court analyzed delay using the framework from R. v. Morin and classified various periods as inherent delay, waiver by the accused, or limited systemic delay.

Most of the post‑charge delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and to the accused’s consent to postponement pending certiorari and appellate proceedings.

The applicants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or unreasonable systemic delay.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding his entitlement to Future Economic Loss (FEL) and Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefits.

The applicant suffered a workplace back injury and later a non-work-related motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not totally disabled prior to the motor vehicle accident and upheld the 18% NEL award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's decisions were reasonable and fell within its specialized expertise.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awarding her $5,000 for loss of income and $1,200 for future therapy following assaults by her former husband.

She argued the Board erred in attributing her psychological condition and inability to work to factors other than the assaults, and in failing to apply the 'thin skull' rule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that pre-existing and subsequent stressors contributed to her inability to work, akin to the 'crumbling skull' doctrine, and that the award fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The defendants moved for a temporary stay of an Ontario action on the basis that identical proceedings were underway in New Brunswick.

The action concerned allegations that a former employee embezzled funds and used them to purchase and improve real property, including property later acquired in another province.

The court considered the test for temporary stays where parallel proceedings exist in different jurisdictions, including whether a stay would prevent duplication of resources and whether it would cause injustice to the resisting party.

The court held that the defendants had not demonstrated that a stay would avoid unnecessary duplication, particularly where the plaintiffs did not intend to pursue the foreign action beyond preserving a certificate of pending litigation.

Granting the stay would effectively render the Ontario proceeding moot and deprive the plaintiffs of their choice of forum.

The motion was dismissed and the defendants were granted time to file a defence.

Following a trial in a personal injury action, the court addressed the issue of costs after written submissions.

The successful plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs alleging litigation misconduct by the defendants, including failure to produce an important engineering drawing and challenging the plaintiff’s credibility.

The defendants argued costs should be reduced due to delay and duplication arising from the plaintiff changing counsel multiple times and periods of self‑representation.

The court held that neither party’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs and emphasized the principle that cost awards must be fair and reasonable rather than matching actual legal fees.

Partial indemnity costs of $200,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements were awarded to the plaintiff, apportioned in accordance with the liability findings.

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering the registration of the respondent as a motor vehicle salesperson with conditions.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse registration due to the respondent's failure to supervise employees who committed extensive fraud, resulting in unpaid liens, taxes, and consumer complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that while the respondent was guilty of lax supervision, he was a victim of fraud and his personal honesty and integrity were not stained.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence of the respondent's guilty pleas to corporate tax offences but held it would not have changed the Tribunal's decision.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denying his claim for compensation after his housemate set fires in their residence and uttered death threats.

The Divisional Court found that the Board erred in law by requiring the appellant to prove the alleged offender intended to injure him through the arson, contrary to established case law.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Board for a re-hearing before a newly constituted panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of three Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions that dismissed his five applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent church, and declared him a vexatious litigant.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no errors of law or unreasonable findings of fact in the Tribunal's decisions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The self-represented applicant sought to introduce a psychiatric report the day before the hearing without a proper affidavit or motion for fresh evidence.

The applicant requested an adjournment to properly serve a notice of motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for an adjournment and refused to admit the report, finding it irrelevant to the issues and noting that an adjournment would prejudice the responding parties.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board to the Divisional Court.

The court found that the appeal raised no question of law, as required by section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, and that the tenants were merely seeking to re-try the case.

The court also dismissed the tenants' allegation of bias, noting that disagreement with the Tribunal's factual findings does not constitute bias.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000.