Brennagh Smith

This decision addresses the costs of an unsuccessful application for partition and sale of jointly owned property.

The applicant's motion was dismissed because it could prejudice the respondent's family law property claims.

The respondent sought costs, which the applicant argued should be deferred.

The court ruled that costs should not be deferred, as the applicant proceeded with the motion despite the respondent's prior suggestion to defer it until trust claims were resolved.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $3000.

This ruling addresses an application for leave to cross-examine an affiant and sub-affiants concerning a search warrant.

The court granted limited cross-examination on specific factual assertions within the Information to Obtain (ITO), including the association between parties, discrepancies in surveillance observations (e.g., backpack possession), and potential confusion in identification due to similar appearances between individuals.

However, leave was denied for cross-examination on the affiant's characterization of observations as drug trafficking and on the overall reliability of confidential information or the non-charging of other targets, deeming these matters more appropriate for legal argument.

The Crown sought an order for the complainant in a criminal trial (assault and sexual assault charges) to testify remotely from her home via Zoom, citing fear of the accused, medical conditions, and childcare issues.

The defence opposed, arguing the application fell under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code, requiring exceptional circumstances, rather than s. 486.2.

The court determined s. 714.1 applied, requiring exceptional circumstances, especially given credibility was a key issue.

The court found the complainant's circumstances, including medical conditions and childcare, did not meet the threshold of exceptional circumstances, particularly considering prior in-person interactions with the accused and the uncontrolled nature of home testimony.

The Crown's motion was dismissed, requiring the complainant to testify in person.

This endorsement addresses the sentencing of an offender convicted of 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder.

Due to a pending Supreme Court of Canada decision on the constitutionality of consecutive parole ineligibility periods under s. 745.51 of the Criminal Code, the court, with agreement from all counsel, decided to proceed with the evidentiary portion of the sentencing hearing and impose the mandatory life sentence for one count of first-degree murder.

The sentencing for the remaining counts will be adjourned until the Supreme Court of Canada releases its decision in R. v. Bissonnette.

The court also deemed it appropriate to transfer the offender to a federal penitentiary.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their claims against the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG Respondents) and a libel claim against the Toronto Police Services Board (Police Respondents).

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

The claims against the MAG Respondents failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, citing Crown attorney immunity from negligence and a lack of pleaded intent for torts like malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and conspiracy.

The libel claim against the Police Respondents was struck for non-compliance with notice requirements and limitation periods under the Libel and Slander Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the appellant Mohamed Abdullahi.

The applicant, a residential tenant living above an unlicensed cannabis retail store, brought an application under section 18(4) of the Cannabis Control Act to lift an interim closure order that barred entry to the entire premises.

The premises had been repeatedly closed by law enforcement due to illegal cannabis sales, but the operators continually breached the closures.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to satisfy the burden of proving that, if access were granted, the premises would not continue to be used for illegal cannabis sales with the landlord's permission.

Following the successful striking of the self-represented plaintiff's libel claim on a Rule 21 motion, the successful police defendants sought costs.

The defendants claimed partial indemnity costs of $11,345.00 but voluntarily reduced their request to $4,000.00 in consideration of the plaintiff's self-represented status and ability to pay.

The court awarded the requested $4,000.00, ordering it payable in any event of the cause rather than forthwith, as the broader action was continuing.

The plaintiff, Mohamed Abdullahi, along with Faiza Ali, sued the Children's Aid Society, Toronto Police Service Board, and the Ministry of the Attorney General and various employees after Abdullahi's acquittal on sexual assault charges.

The defendants brought motions to strike portions of the Amended Statement of Claim.

The Police Defendants sought to strike the libel claim for failure to provide timely notice and for being statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act.

The Attorney General Defendants sought to strike the action against them entirely, arguing that the Ministry was not a suable entity, Crown Attorneys were immune from personal liability, and no reasonable cause of action was pleaded, particularly lacking material facts to support intentional misconduct beyond negligence.

The court dismissed the libel action against the Police Defendants and dismissed the entire action against the Attorney General Defendants, while allowing other claims against the Police and Society Defendants to proceed.

The court also cancelled a scheduled summary judgment motion, deeming a trial necessary.

The respondent Anthony Novac and third-party respondents (collectively "Novac/Sonco") brought motions for a preservation order and security for costs, respectively, against the applicant Jennifer Ann Leitch.

These motions followed a prior judgment where Leitch was ordered to pay significant costs.

Anthony sought a preservation order for Leitch's assets, including the Caledon farm property, and alternatively, its transfer to him based on a trust claim.

Novac/Sonco sought security for costs and preservation of the farm and artwork.

Leitch opposed, wishing to sell the farm and arguing against priority for creditors and lack of grounds for a Mareva injunction.

The court dismissed Anthony's request for the farm's transfer but granted the preservation orders for the farm and artwork in Leitch's possession, finding that Leitch's financial circumstances and prior unreasonable conduct justified securing the substantial costs awards.

The applicant, Jennifer Ann Leitch, brought a motion for a declaration of conspiracy and damages, while the respondent, Anthony James Charles Novac, brought a cross-motion for a decrease in child and spousal support.

The applicant's motion was dismissed, and the respondent's motion was granted.

This ruling addresses the significant costs sought by the successful respondent and third-party respondents (Novac/Sonco) against the applicant.

The court considered the parties' offers to settle, the complexity of the issues, the applicant's unreasonable litigation strategy, and the proportionality of the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments for reducing costs based on the respondent's alleged misrepresentation of income or her limited means, emphasizing that the applicant, a litigation lawyer, understood the risks.

This decision addresses costs following a three-day trial where the applicant's claim for spousal support and imputation of income to the respondent was dismissed.

The court applied the pre-July 1, 2018 Family Law Rules, particularly Rule 24, which presumes a successful party is entitled to costs.

Factors considered included the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, lawyer rates, time spent, and financial circumstances.

Despite the respondent's success, the court adjusted the quantum of costs, taking into account the similar financial circumstances of both parties and the reasonableness of the applicant's litigation, ultimately awarding the respondent $22,052.68.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash witness summonses issued under the Provincial Offences Act, alleging abuse of process due to city officials misleading them into providing information.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants could not demonstrate sufficient personal prejudice, that the trial court was the appropriate forum to address abuse of process arguments (which primarily protect accused persons), and that interlocutory prerogative relief should be granted only rarely to prevent delay and fragmentation of quasi-criminal proceedings, especially in light of R. v. Jordan.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s action after trial, the defendant sought costs relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle that proposed dismissal without costs.

The defendant requested $45,000 inclusive based on substantial indemnity principles after the plaintiff rejected the offer and lost at trial.

The court accepted that the offer was more favourable than the trial outcome and that the defendant had defended the matter efficiently.

However, considering the plaintiff’s limited financial means and self-represented status, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the award.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff brought a civil claim for false arrest against the defendant police services board arising from his arrest at home following a domestic disturbance.

The court applied the two-stage analysis for false arrest, requiring the plaintiff to prove detention and the defendant to justify the arrest as lawful.

Police had responded to a 911 call from the plaintiff’s spouse reporting violent conduct, including smashing glassware and displaying threatening behaviour in a home containing numerous weapons.

Considering the officers’ observations, the complainant’s distress, and prior domestic violence history, the court held that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for assault with a weapon under the Criminal Code.

The claim was dismissed.

Following a prior decision granting declaratory relief for infringement under the Trade-Marks Act and Competition Act, the court addressed whether costs should be awarded before the quantification of damages on a reference.

The respondent argued that costs should be deferred until damages were determined in order to respect the principle of proportionality.

The court held that s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure confer discretion to award costs for a proceeding or a step in a proceeding even before damages are quantified.

Given the applicant’s substantial success on liability and the final nature of the declaratory relief, the court ordered that costs be payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis, while allowing the respondent to make written submissions on the quantum of costs.

The applicant alleged that the respondent distributed a brochure containing false and misleading statements about the applicant’s water heater rental services.

The court considered whether the brochure breached s. 7(a), s. 22, and s. 53.2 of the Trade-Marks Act and s. 52 of the Competition Act by discrediting a competitor and depreciating the value of goodwill attached to registered trade-marks.

The court found the brochure contained inaccurate and misleading representations and improperly reproduced the applicant’s trade-mark and logo.

The court concluded the respondent’s conduct breached the Trade-Marks Act and the Competition Act.

A declaration of breach was issued, a permanent injunction granted restraining further distribution of the brochure, and a reference ordered to determine damages.