Catherine D. Aitken

The Applicant sought the sale of a jointly-titled property under the Partition Act and opposed interim spousal support for the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed the sale, citing her mother's health and a potential gift, and sought interim spousal support.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the property, finding the Respondent's reasons unpersuasive and her financial capacity insufficient to purchase the Applicant's interest.

The court also declined to order interim spousal support, noting the Applicant was already covering significant property expenses benefiting the Respondent and her mother, which effectively provided a non-taxable benefit equivalent to potential support.

The accused was found guilty of obstructing a peace officer after concealing his involvement in a fatal collision between his pickup truck and a cyclist.

The accused repaired his vehicle and hid from police for several days out of fear.

The court weighed the devastating impact on the victim's family against the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and otherwise positive character.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, including a curfew and 100 hours of community service.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim, alleging no reasonable cause of action, reliance on false documents, and abuse of process.

The defendant also sought various ancillary orders, including declarations regarding financial obligations and property charges, credit rating restoration, and sealing of court files.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's Statement of Claim adequately pled material facts for its claims based on a mortgage and unpaid credit card bills.

The court determined that the defendant's arguments related to the merits of the plaintiff's claim rather than the adequacy of the pleading itself, which is the focus of a Rule 25.11 motion.

The court noted several substantive issues raised by the defendant that might warrant a trial on the merits.

Costs were reserved.

The Third Party sought costs after partially succeeding on a motion to strike claims in an Amended Third Party Claim.

The Defendant opposed, arguing the motion was unnecessary and the Third Party introduced a new issue late.

The court found divided success on the motion to strike and unreasonable behaviour from both parties, including the Defendant's poorly drafted Third Party Claim and the Third Party's improper Demand for Particulars and late introduction of an objection.

Consequently, no costs were awarded to either party.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to have the partial defence of provocation left to the jury.

The Crown argued there was no air of reality to the defence.

The court applied the five-component air of reality test for provocation under s. 232 of the Criminal Code, considering both objective and subjective elements.

The court found that there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to have a reasonable doubt regarding the Crown disproving the elements of provocation, particularly concerning whether the victim's conduct constituted an indictable offence and whether it would deprive an ordinary person of self-control, despite the accused initiating the confrontation.

The court ruled that the defence of provocation would be left with the jury.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision that refused to discontinue the respondent worker's Future Economic Loss benefits.

The worker had returned to full-time work 17 years after his injury, but his benefits had been locked-in after the statutory 60-month review window.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the legislation and policy directives—that benefits could not be reviewed after 60 months absent specific exceptions—was reasonable and respected the legislative objective of finality.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the accused on three counts of historic incest involving two complainants who were his sisters.

The court admitted evidence of prior discreditable conduct from the accused's youth as relevant to context, motive, power dynamics, and the complainants' delayed disclosure, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Applying the governing principles for assessing adult testimony about childhood events, the court found both complainants credible and their evidence sufficiently reliable on the essential elements of penetration, knowledge of blood relationship, and identity.

The court held that no count-to-count similar fact analysis was necessary because the convictions could be entered on the direct evidence alone.

The Third Party, RE/MAX Ontario-Atlantic Canada Inc. o/a RE/MAX Integra, brought a motion to strike portions of the Amended Third Party Claim filed by the Defendant, RE/MAX Core Realty Inc. The claims sought to be struck included allegations of unfair business practices, breaches of common law duties of fair dealing and good faith, breaches of the Arthur Wishart Act, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court struck the claims for unfair business practices (by consent) and intentional interference with economic relations (without leave to amend).

The claims for breaches of common law and statutory duties of good faith were struck but with leave for the Defendant to amend its pleading to include necessary material facts linking the allegations to the Franchise Agreement.

The court also clarified that allegations regarding a disciplinary matter could be included as particulars for the good faith claims, provided they were properly tied to the Franchise Agreement.

The applicant media organization sought judicial review of a decision to hold an in camera hearing for an extension of time application under s. 83(17) of the Police Services Act regarding police misconduct allegations.

The applicant argued the decision-maker erred by failing to apply the Dagenais/Mentuck test for open court proceedings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Dagenais/Mentuck test does not apply to administrative or procedural functions under the Police Services Act, which contains its own statutory framework for determining when hearings may be closed to the public.

The insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The insurer argued that the insured's claim for long-term disability benefits was statute-barred because the two-year limitation period began when benefits were initially denied.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the limitation period did not begin to run until the internal appeal process was concluded, as it was not legally appropriate for the insured to commence an action while the appeal was ongoing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Appellant, Bernard Momprevil, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and appealed his conviction and sentence for breach of probation.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension, including bona fide intention, explanation for delay, and the merit of the proposed appeal.

The Appellant failed to provide evidence of a bona fide intention or explain the significant delay in filing the appeal, and the court found no appreciable promise of success on the merits.

Furthermore, the Appellant had already benefited from the original judgment, which involved the withdrawal of more serious charges and his release from custody.

The court also affirmed the validity of the guilty plea, finding it to be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, as the Appellant actively participated in discussions, understood the consequences, and was not subjected to pressure.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Abdulahi Quadri, appealed a suspended sentence imposed for knowingly using a forged document, arguing he should have received a conditional discharge due to potential immigration consequences.

The sentencing judge had disbelieved the appellant's explanation and considered the offence serious, especially given a prior conditional discharge.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a sentencing judge is not compelled to adjust a sentence to avoid collateral immigration consequences if it would render the sentence inappropriate, and that the judge's weighing of sentencing factors is entitled to deference.

The accused, Deinsberg St. Hilaire, was charged with dangerous driving causing death, failure to stop at the scene of an accident causing death, and obstruction of a peace officer.

He pleaded guilty to obstruction but not guilty to the other two.

The charges arose from a collision where his pickup truck struck and killed a cyclist on the paved shoulder of Leitrim Road.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the *actus reus* and *mens rea* for dangerous driving, specifically that the driving constituted a 'marked departure' from the standard of care or that the accused knew or ought to have known he was too tired to drive.

For the failure to stop charge, the court found reasonable doubt as to whether the accused knew or was wilfully blind to having struck a person.

Consequently, St. Hilaire was found not guilty of dangerous driving causing death and failure to stop, but guilty of obstruction of a peace officer.

The accused, a public servant at Library and Archives Canada, was charged under s. 80(1)(b) of the Financial Administration Act with making opportunity for another person to defraud the government in relation to the procurement of IT consulting services.

The Crown alleged that the accused's communications with a vendor gave the vendor an unfair competitive advantage and enabled bid-rigging.

The court found that while the accused's conduct may have reduced the openness and transparency of the procurement process, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions created an opportunity to defraud the government of public money or that he had the requisite mens rea.

The accused was found not guilty.

The plaintiffs, a commercial real estate broker and his company, brought an action against the defendant brokerage firm seeking a declaration that their independent contractor agreement was terminated without cause, thereby forgiving a $225,000 loan.

The defendant counterclaimed for repayment of the loan, alleging the plaintiff terminated the agreement or was terminated for default.

The court rectified the agreement to include a mistakenly omitted provision regarding the plaintiff's leadership role and analyzed the interpretation of the plaintiff's role as the Ottawa Practice Lead for investments, finding that no strict $10 million ceiling was placed on the plaintiff's transactions.

The applicant, an American citizen facing charges of sexual assault of a minor in Wisconsin, sought judicial interim release pending extradition proceedings.

The court found that the reverse onus applied as the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Canada.

The proposed surety was deemed inadequate due to a lack of understanding of the charges, an unrealistic supervision plan, and an inability to post a sufficient bond.

Given the applicant's history of fleeing jurisdiction and the serious nature of the charges, the court concluded that detention was necessary on the primary grounds to ensure his attendance in court.

Bail was denied.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of his child with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father sought joint custody with the child's paternal aunt, or sole custody for the aunt to adopt the child.

The father argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding his drug addiction recovery, and failed to consider the least intrusive course of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings and preference for the court-appointed expert's evidence were reasonable, and he properly considered and rejected the aunt's plan of care as insufficient to protect the child.

The applicant, charged with conspiracy and drug trafficking offences following a complex police investigation, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 60 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and transitional provisions, deducting periods of defence waiver and delay caused by discrete exceptional events, including a mistrial and a change of lead counsel.

The court concluded that the remaining delay was justified by the exceptional complexity of the case and the parties' reasonable reliance on the previous Morin framework.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendants to remove construction brackets and work platforms that encroached on the plaintiffs' property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding trespass.

However, the motion was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as damages could compensate for the construction delay, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants, who needed the platforms to complete their building.

The appellant physician appealed an interlocutory order granting the plaintiff leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add a novel claim in negligence against her.

The plaintiff alleged the physician owed him a duty of care when she provided psychiatric advice to a patient regarding the plaintiff, an unidentified third party.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that no prima facie duty of care existed due to a lack of proximity, and that residual policy considerations, including conflicting duties and the chilling effect on physicians, negated any such duty.