C. Boswell

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $22,126.11.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $101,830.30, arguing the plaintiff prolonged the action by taking an incorrect legal position on the applicable interest rate.

The court found the plaintiff was prima facie entitled to costs but reduced the award to $13,060 because the plaintiff's insistence on an unsustainable interest rate prolonged the proceedings and hindered settlement.

The moving party brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss a defamation claim arising from his distribution of a petition criticizing the responding party's leadership of a religious society.

The petition included a false allegation that the responding party's family sold society lands without accounting for the proceeds.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the expression related to a matter of public interest, the responding party failed to show the claim had substantial merit or that there were no valid defences, and the public interest in protecting the expression outweighed the harm to the responding party.

The plaintiff brought an action against the Children's Aid Society and several of its employees for $50 million, alleging breach of trust, Charter violations, and defamation after the Society determined she was not an approved caregiver and communicated this to families she was involved with.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the defendants were immune from liability under s. 37(1) of the CYFSA as they acted in good faith.

Furthermore, the court found no fiduciary duty, duty of care, or duty of confidentiality was breached, no Charter rights were engaged, and the defamation claims were defeated by the defences of justification and qualified privilege.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

He contended that following the enactment of Bill C-75, which eliminated preliminary hearings for his charge, the presumptive ceiling for his Superior Court trial should be 18 months rather than 30 months.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the 30-month ceiling applies to all cases in the Superior Court regardless of whether a preliminary hearing is held.

The court also found that the anticipated net delay of 22 months, after deducting Covid-19 related exceptional circumstances, was not markedly longer than reasonably required.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The third parties brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to disclose their real estate lawyer's files relating to the purchase of their property.

The plaintiffs opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the plaintiffs' former counsel had previously undertaken to produce the files and had thereby waived any claim to privilege.

The motion was granted and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the files.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent is a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act following years of litigation over a defaulted mortgage.

The respondent requested the judge recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on comments made in a prior ruling.

The court dismissed the recusal request, finding the prior comments were an accurate assessment of the respondent's delay tactics.

The court granted the vexatious litigant application, finding the respondent had persistently instituted meritless proceedings, rolled over issues, failed to pay costs, and exhibited numerous hallmarks of a vexatious litigant.

The respondent was barred from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave of the court.

The applicant, facing multiple charges including sexual assault and attempted child abduction, applied for a review of his detention after spending 911 days in pre-trial custody.

The court found that the significant passage of time, combined with the harsh conditions of pre-trial detention during the COVID-19 pandemic, constituted a material change in circumstances triggering jurisdiction for a review.

The court concluded that a stringent release plan, including house arrest, a $100,000 surety, and GPS ankle monitoring, sufficiently attenuated the risks to public safety and maintained confidence in the administration of justice.

The detention order was vacated and the applicant was released on strict conditions.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.

The trial judge had delivered a brief oral acquittal and later provided comprehensive written reasons after inviting further submissions on a new appellate decision.

The parties agreed that under R. v. Teskey, the appellate court could not consider the written reasons, and under R. v. Sheppard, the oral reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The summary conviction appeal court accepted the joint submission, set aside the acquittal, and ordered a new trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, the successful defendant sought costs of $210,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of its $25,000 offer to settle.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to impecuniosity or a reduced amount due to divided success and the reasonableness of her claim.

The court found insufficient evidence of impecuniosity and held that the defendant's offer, being only slightly above nuisance value, did not warrant elevated costs under Rule 49.10(2).

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $143,978.67, noting the need to balance the successful party's entitlement with access to justice concerns.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and multiple firearms offences.

The offences involved shooting a man in the leg over a drug debt in a residential complex, and later being found in a vehicle with a loaded handgun and significant quantities of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors, including the accused's lengthy criminal record for firearms offences, against mitigating factors such as his guilty pleas, difficult background, and exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns.

A global sentence of 7.5 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, facing serious charges for trafficking carfentanil and possessing numerous firearms, applied for a second bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a novel release plan involving 24/7 physical surveillance by a private security firm, GPS monitoring, and strict house arrest with multiple sureties.

The court found that this enhanced plan, combined with the severe difficulties the accused faced in preparing for trial due to COVID-19 restrictions in custody, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the stringent conditions sufficiently attenuated the primary, secondary, and tertiary ground concerns, and ordered the accused's release.

The added defendants (purchasers) moved to discharge a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff, to lift a stay on a writ of possession, and for the return of their purchase funds after a failed real estate closing.

The court found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure when obtaining the CPL and that the equities favoured the purchasers.

The court discharged the CPL, lifted the stay on the writ of possession, and ordered the vendors' solicitor to immediately return the purchase funds to the purchasers, as the vendors failed to provide vacant possession and clear title on closing.

The defendants brought a motion to impose a discovery plan in a Simplified Rules motor vehicle accident claim.

The parties disagreed on whether the plaintiff should be required to produce certain medical and employment records prior to oral examinations, and who should bear the upfront cost of obtaining them.

The court ordered the plaintiff to use her best efforts to obtain and disclose the disputed productions prior to discoveries, finding them relevant and proportionate.

The court also held that under Rule 76.03, the plaintiff is presumptively required to obtain and disclose these documents at her own expense.

The plaintiff sued the owners, property managers, and cleaning contractors of a shopping mall after slipping and falling near the food court.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no objective evidence of a hazard on the floor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's direct evidence that her foot stuck to a sticky substance raised a genuine issue for trial.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence on the record to determine whether the defendants had a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance in place.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, obstructing a police officer, and breach of recognizance after a traffic stop where he gave a false name and was found with 25 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought 10 months' custody, while the defence sought time served based on pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

The court sentenced the offender to four months' custody, credited as time served, plus 12 months of probation, noting his rehabilitation efforts and guilty plea.

The applicants, charged with human trafficking offences, applied under s. 462.34(1) of the Criminal Code to access approximately $133,000 in restrained funds held in their corporation's bank account to pay for living and legal expenses.

The court found the applicants had an interest in the funds and lacked sufficient other means to pay their legal fees, though they did not need the funds for living expenses.

However, because the corporation owed approximately $67,000 in unremitted HST, which is deemed to be held in trust for the Crown under the Excise Tax Act, the court only released the remaining $66,000 to the applicants' counsel to fund their defence.

The plaintiff moved for urgent injunctive relief against his neighbours, the defendants, alleging their excavation activities encroached on his lands and caused flooding.

The court granted an interim interim injunction enjoining the defendants from trespassing and ordering them to permit the plaintiff's expert access to their property to conduct investigations.

The court declined to enjoin the defendants from conducting further landscaping on their own lands, finding no evidence of irreparable harm.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk outside a post office.

Over three years later, he moved to amend his statement of claim to add several third and fourth parties as defendants to the main action.

Two of the proposed defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in investigating the cause of the ice build-up and delayed informing his counsel about a broken eavestrough.

Factoring in the COVID-19 limitation period suspension, the court concluded the limitation period had expired and dismissed the motion against the opposing parties.

The applicant conservation authority sought an interim injunction to stop the respondents from excavating peat and depositing fill on their property, which is located within a provincially significant wetland.

The respondents had been carrying out these activities without the required permits under the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 179/06.

The court found that the respondents were in flagrant breach of the regulation and that their activities were causing irreparable harm to the wetland.

The court granted the interim injunction, prohibiting the respondents from interfering with the wetland without prior written approval.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support, and the respondent sought an order for the sale of two co-owned properties located in Quebec.

The court found the applicant entitled to support and imputed an income of $138,265 to the respondent based on a three-year average of his corporate earnings.

Temporary spousal support was ordered at $3,000 per month, factoring in the applicant's exclusive possession of one Quebec property and imputed rental income from the other.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to sell the Quebec properties, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the sale of extra-provincial lands under the Partition Act or Family Law Act, and that the Catania test for in personam jurisdiction was not met.