Casullo

The applicant moved to set aside an order that removed him as estate trustee and appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation (ETDL), arguing he lacked notice of the underlying contempt motion.

The court found the applicant had proper notice through his former counsel but chose not to attend.

The court further held that even if notice was improper, the appointment of an ETDL was necessary given the adversarial relationship between the co-trustees and the applicant's improper administration of the estate.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The offender was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of failing to comply with release conditions.

The court considered the offender's difficult upbringing, the impact of anti-Black racism, and his strict bail conditions as mitigating factors.

The court also found a breach of the offender's s. 11(b) Charter rights due to a 27-day post-verdict delay, reducing the sentence by two months.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 26 months' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cannabis for distribution, and failure to comply with release conditions.

Following a surveillance operation, police conducted a high-risk takedown and arrested the accused for breaching his recognizance.

A subsequent search of his vehicle revealed a kilogram of cocaine and a pound of cannabis.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 8 and 10(a) rights.

The court found a technical s. 10(a) breach but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found the accused guilty of the cocaine and breach charges, relying on constructive possession, but acquitted him of the cannabis charge due to insufficient evidence of a purpose of distribution.

The plaintiff mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking over $400,000 and possession of the defendant's property following a mortgage default.

The defendant disputed the quantum owed, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide payout statements and that the interest calculations were incorrect.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the exact amount owed and the credibility of the parties constituted a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court also declined to rule on the defendant's oral request to set aside deemed admissions from an unanswered Request to Admit, directing that a formal motion be brought.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action for damages arising from the defendants' failure to close on a residential real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged the failure to close was due to a lack of financing, while the defendants claimed it was due to deficiencies identified during the pre-delivery inspection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence on the reason for the breach of contract, combined with the prohibition on cross-examinations under Rule 76, created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and child luring after allegedly approaching young girls in a park.

Police placed him under investigative detention, searched him, and later arrested him, conducting a strip search and a search of his vehicle incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breaches, concluding the searches were lawful and justified by safety concerns.

While the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to a delay in fully advising the accused of his right to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's interest in adjudicating serious offences involving children on their merits.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for dependent relief and a finding that a foreign divorce decree was valid, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $84,000, while the applicant argued the estate should bear the costs.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the estate should pay, noting the litigation was driven solely by the applicant.

The court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $50,000.

The applicant sought a declaration that his 2015 Iranian divorce from his deceased ex-wife was invalid, and claimed dependent relief against her estate.

The deceased and their children were killed in the Flight 752 crash.

The court found the divorce was valid under the common law 'real and substantial connection' test, as both parties were born, raised, married, and operated businesses in Iran.

The applicant's alternative claim for dependent relief was dismissed because he failed to provide supporting evidence and was denied leave to split his case by adducing fresh evidence after cross-examinations.

The defendants brought a motion to strike two statements of claim issued by the self-represented plaintiff, which alleged defamation and misrepresentation related to the transfer of cord blood samples.

The court struck the defamation claims without leave to amend, finding the allegedly defamatory statements were not made by the defendants and did not refer to the plaintiff.

The misrepresentation claims were struck with leave to amend for failing to plead material facts with sufficient particularity.

Several paragraphs were also struck as scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious.

The court ordered the two actions consolidated.

Following a trial and an appeal that remitted the matter back for an assessment of damages on the counterclaim, the court assessed damages for the unlawful seizure of the defendants' business assets.

The court valued the seized heavy equipment at $415,000 and assessed business losses at $210,000.

After applying a set-off for the damages awarded to the plaintiffs in the main action, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $273,251.87.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured when she lost control of her vehicle on a snow-covered and icy municipal road, crossing the centre line and colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for failing to keep the road in a reasonable state of repair.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the municipality was in the midst of a winter weather event but failed to adequately treat the road, leaving it unplowed and subject to refreezing for several hours.

The court held that the road was in a state of non-repair, which caused the collision, and that the municipality failed to establish any statutory defences under the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff was found not to be contributorily negligent, and the municipality was held fully liable for the agreed-upon damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant Township of Oro-Medonte to answer questions refused at an examination for discovery, produce Standard Operating Procedures, and re-attend discovery.

The defendant argued leave was required because the matter had been set down for trial.

The court found leave was not required as the motion record was served before the trial record, but would have granted leave regardless.

The court ordered the defendant to answer the refused questions, produce the requested documents, and have its representative re-attend discovery at its own expense, finding the requested information relevant to whether the defendant acted reasonably in its response to the downed hydro wires.

The applicants entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to buy the respondents' home.

The agreement included an escape clause allowing the respondents to accept a better offer if the applicants did not waive their conditions within 24 hours of notice.

The respondents received a higher offer and notified the applicants, who promptly waived their financing and inspection conditions.

The respondents claimed the applicants also needed to explicitly waive the escape clause itself, and sold the property to the second buyer.

The court found the respondents breached the contract, as the escape clause was merely a mechanism that was fulfilled when the applicants waived their conditions.

The court directed a reference to determine the quantum of damages, noting the applicants' duty to mitigate.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

He argued that his statements to the police at the scene of a single-vehicle collision were compelled under the Highway Traffic Act, and therefore the officer's observation of the smell of alcohol should have been excluded under the Charter.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the trial judge's finding that the officer detected the smell of alcohol independently of the compelled statements, specifically when the appellant was isolated in the police cruiser.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) brought an application concerning the property of a woman with developmental delays, initially seeking to terminate her friend's power of attorney and be appointed guardian of property.

The PGT later sought court approval of a Trust Agreement to manage her settlement funds.

The court refused to approve the Trust Agreement, finding that the woman had the requisite capacity to grant the power of attorney to her friend.

The court emphasized the low threshold for capacity to grant a power of attorney and the importance of autonomy, and accepted the friend's informal passing of accounts.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim in a medical malpractice action against an otolaryngologist.

The defendants opposed several amendments, arguing they sought to add statute-barred causes of action and withdraw an admission.

The court found that the proposed amendments regarding two additional surgeries performed on the same day added new causes of action outside the limitation period.

The court also refused leave to withdraw an admission regarding when a risk discussion occurred, as the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the change in position.

The contested amendments were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to significant trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The plaintiff argued that waiting for a jury trial would cause substantial financial prejudice, as his future income loss would convert to past income loss subject to statutory deductions.

The court found that the practical reality in the Central East Region meant a jury trial would be delayed until at least late 2022, whereas a judge-alone trial could proceed much sooner.

The motion was granted and the jury notice was struck to ensure the timely delivery of justice.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a pedestrian/motor vehicle collision.

The matter was ready for trial but faced significant delays due to the suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the motion, finding that the anticipated delay of over a year would prejudice the plaintiff and undermine the service guarantee of an expeditious determination on the merits.

The jury notice was struck to ensure justice was better served by a timely judge-alone trial.

The plaintiff passenger sued the defendant driver for negligence after their motorcycle collided with a deer in Wisconsin.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the collision was an inevitable accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the defendant's negligence due to his speed, lack of proper eyewear in the rain, and distraction.

Using its expanded fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), the court determined the defendant was negligent, leaving damages to be assessed at trial.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and failure to comply offences, applied for a bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after spending over a year in pre-trial custody.

The court found that the applicant's continued detention was no longer justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds, noting the unreasonable delay in bringing the review, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial conditions, and the applicant's acceptance into a bail supervision program.

The application was granted and the applicant was released on strict conditions without a surety.