Catrina D. Braid

The Crown brought an application for certiorari to quash a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice, which held that it lacked jurisdiction to appoint state-funded counsel for a complainant in sexual offence pretrial proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the lower court committed a jurisdictional error.

The Court held that statutory courts possess inherent procedural jurisdiction by necessary implication to appoint counsel for complainants to ensure proceedings are administered justly and fairly.

The application for certiorari was granted and the lower court decision was quashed.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking primary residence, sole decision-making, and other relief in a family law matter involving two daughters.

The court declined to grant primary residence but made orders for parenting time and counselling.

In this costs endorsement, the court determined that the mother was entitled to costs despite not achieving complete success on the motion.

The mother had made two formal offers to settle and one informal offer that were similar to or better than the results achieved.

The father's conduct in denying the mother any parenting time until court-ordered, combined with his failure to make any settlement offers, warranted a costs award.

The court ordered the father to pay $20,000 in costs to the mother, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The United States sought the extradition of Juan Andres Donato Bautista to stand trial in Florida for money laundering offences.

The respondent challenged the extradition on the grounds that a superseding indictment rendered the Record of the Case unreliable and that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the extradition judge is not concerned with foreign law or foreign charging documents, and that the Authority to Proceed provides the basis for the extradition proceeding.

The court found sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for money laundering and confirmed the respondent's identity.

The respondent was committed into custody to await surrender.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a motion by the plaintiffs to abridge the time for service of an expert report regarding the standard of care by a hospital.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario.

The court found that a fair and reasonable award of costs for the motion was $7,500, to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant, Grand River Hospital.

The appellant, G.T., challenged a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming the criteria for issuing a Community Treatment Order (CTO) under the Mental Health Act.

The appeal focused on whether there was informed consent by the substitute decision maker (SDM) and whether the Board erred by relying on uncorroborated hearsay.

The court found that the SDM was properly informed and consented to the treatment plan, and that the Board did not make a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The decision concerns an application for disclosure in the context of extradition proceedings.

The United States seeks the extradition of Juan Andres Donato Bautista to stand trial in Florida for offences corresponding to laundering proceeds of crime under Canadian law.

The applicant sought disclosure of banking records relating to the Baumann Enterprises Limited account, arguing that a letter from the Bank of Singapore contradicted the Record of the Case (ROC) relied upon by the United States.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold for disclosure in extradition proceedings, as the evidence did not establish manifest unreliability in the ROC.

The application for disclosure was dismissed.

The plaintiffs moved for an order abridging the time for service of an expert report regarding the standard of care by a hospital.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the late service of the plaintiff’s expert report and emphasizing the importance of timely service of expert reports under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The matter was removed from the January 2025 trial sittings and directed to Trial Scheduling Court.

This costs endorsement followed a motion by Fundstream Inc. to strike portions of 9695672 Canada Inc. o/a Vector's claim, which was dismissed.

Vector, as the successful party on the underlying motion, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, awarded Vector $7,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding this amount to be fair and reasonable given the complexity and importance of the motion, and considering the principle of indemnity and the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The applicant mother brought two motions, including a contempt motion, against the respondent father, alleging breaches of a previous court order regarding communication and child-related issues.

The court, referencing a prior lengthy judgment by Justice Pazaratz, found that the mother was attempting to relitigate settled matters and that the alleged breaches by the father did not meet the high standard for civil contempt.

The court also noted the mother's own antagonistic behaviour.

Both motions were dismissed, with no costs awarded due to the unreasonable behaviour of both parties, but a warning was issued regarding future motions.

This application concerned the enforceability of Minutes of Settlement regarding the sale of a farm property within an estate.

The applicants sought to enforce the Minutes of Settlement to purchase the farm, while the respondents sought to have the property sold on the open market.

The court determined that the Minutes of Settlement constituted a contract, not a judgment.

It found that the applicants had repudiated the contract through extreme and inordinate delays in fulfilling their obligations, including failing to obtain an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) or an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) which they unilaterally imposed as conditions.

The respondents validly accepted this repudiation.

Consequently, the applicants were no longer entitled to purchase the farm property under the Minutes of Settlement, and the estate trustee was directed to sell the farm on the open market, with proceeds distributed according to the will.

The applicants sought a declaration of possessory title over a three-foot strip of land abutting their cottage property.

The court found that while the applicants had actual possession of the disputed lands, they failed to establish an intention to exclude the true owners or that they effectively excluded them.

The disputed lands were open and accessible to the community, and the true owners frequently crossed and used the lands without restriction.

The application for adverse possession was dismissed.

The defendant Fundstream Inc. brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff Vector's Statement of Claim, specifically allegations of conspiracy by unlawful means, predominant purpose conspiracy, and false representation.

Fundstream argued that these claims lacked sufficient particularity.

The court reviewed the test for striking pleadings, emphasizing a generous reading of the claim and a high threshold for striking.

Despite the requirement for heightened particularity in pleading fraud and conspiracy, the court found that Vector's pleadings provided enough detail for the defendants to know the case they had to meet, acknowledging that some specific details of the alleged conspiracy might only become known through the discovery process.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, appealed his conviction and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The appeal court dismissed the application for fresh evidence, finding it irrelevant, not credible, or not affecting the outcome.

The court also dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's credibility assessments, finding no palpable and overriding error, and rejecting arguments that the trial judge failed to consider the appellant's racialized background or relied on stereotypes.

This addendum to reasons on undertakings and refusals motions addresses Delta Plus Group's claim of litigation privilege over Refusal No. 10, which arose during the examination for discovery.

The court found that Delta failed to provide firsthand evidence from the document's creator to establish that the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, as required for litigation privilege.

Consequently, the court ordered Delta to answer the question.

The condominium corporation sought full or substantial indemnity costs after a mixed result in an application against unit owners for unauthorized modifications.

The court found the condominium's offer to settle was as favourable or more favourable than the ruling, entitling them to costs under Rule 49.10.

However, due to the applicant raising an alternate remedy late in the process, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.10 and Rule 57.01, awarding a reduced amount of $5,000 in costs to the condominium, significantly less than the $37,000-$46,000 sought.

This endorsement determines the costs of a previous motion where Built By Engineers Construction Inc. (BBE) successfully defended against Coronation Medical Plaza Inc.'s (Coronation) motion to discharge a construction lien.

BBE sought partial indemnity costs.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, as well as the principles from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario.

The court found a fair and reasonable award of costs to be $22,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by Coronation to BBE.

The applicant condominium corporation sought orders against unit owners for unauthorized modifications, specifically an added bathroom, which breached the Condominium Declaration and Section 117 of the Condominium Act, 1998, by posing a risk to property and occupants due to Building Code non-compliance.

The court found jurisdiction for the Section 117 breach but dismissed the Declaration breach claim due to a failure to arbitrate.

The court ordered the respondents to bring the added bathroom into Building Code compliance or remove it, with the condominium authorized to perform the work at the owners' expense if they failed to comply.

In a complex commercial dispute stemming from a Share Purchase Agreement and consulting agreements, both the plaintiffs (the Dentes and related entities) and the defendants (Delta Plus Group and its subsidiaries) brought motions to compel answers to undertakings and refusals arising from examinations for discovery.

The court addressed various issues including the relevance of financial information, the accessibility of manual journal entries, the sufficiency of particulars for damage claims, and the assertion of litigation privilege.

The court ordered some productions and dismissed others, emphasizing the principles of relevance and proportionality in discovery.

Given the mixed results, the court also ordered that each party bear their own costs and allowed for further limited examinations for discovery.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that certain communications with their lawyers, which were inadvertently left on the defendants' email servers after a share purchase transaction, were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiffs also sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit after cross-examinations.

The court granted leave to file the new affidavit.

On the privilege motion, the court found that the plaintiffs' law firm did not represent the target companies during the transaction, meaning no joint privilege passed to the purchaser.

The court also held that the plaintiffs did not waive privilege by using the company email servers, as the disclosure was inadvertent and they maintained a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court reviewed the documents and declared which ones were privileged.

Coronation Medical Plaza Inc. brought a motion under s. 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a construction lien registered by Built By Engineers Construction Inc., arguing the lien was not registered in time.

The court determined that the former Construction Lien Act applied as the contract was entered into before July 1, 2018.

The court found that there were significant factual disputes, particularly regarding whether certain work was removed from the contract scope, the reason for delayed invoicing, and whether later work related to defects or separate contracts.

The court declined to exercise enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20, as these are not available on a s. 47 motion, and found that the disputed issues required credibility assessments best made at trial.

Consequently, the motion to discharge the lien was dismissed due to the existence of triable issues regarding the lien's timeliness.