Cemal Acikgoz

The defendants brought a motion to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim to add a $100,000 defamation claim just days before a scheduled simplified procedure trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to adequately explain their delay in seeking the amendment.

The court held that adding a defamation claim would materially alter the factual framework, require further discovery, cause significant delay, and potentially push the trial beyond the five-day limit for simplified procedure actions, resulting in non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs.

Paternal grandparents sought leave to bring an urgent motion for joint custody and primary care of two children (ages 5 and 3).

The children's father had wrongfully removed them to Turkey in breach of a 2017 custody order.

The mother obtained a Hague Convention order for their return in May 2019 and subsequently obtained temporary custody.

The court dismissed the grandparents' request for an urgent motion, finding no evidence of abduction or threat of harm by the mother, no immediate concern that could not await resolution, and noting the grandparents' delay in seeking court intervention.

Instead, the court ordered a priority case conference to be held by teleconference.

The accused, IA, was charged with multiple sexual offences against the complainant, KH.

The case centered on credibility, with conflicting accounts of the sexual encounter.

The court, applying principles from R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. Ewanchuk, found IA's evidence credible and reliable.

The Crown failed to disprove consent beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to IA's acquittal on all counts.

The accused was charged with assault, sexual assault, and extortion following encounters with a complainant he met on a dating app.

The accused provided a timely and particularized alibi for the extortion charge, supported by employment and Ministry of Transportation records, which the court found highly persuasive.

The court also found significant reliability and credibility issues with the complainant's evidence regarding the assault and sexual assault allegations, including inconsistencies about a photograph of her alleged injuries.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt on all counts and found the accused not guilty.

This case involved the breakdown of a short marriage and an application for divorce and equalization of net family properties.

The applicant husband sought an equalization payment, while the respondent wife disputed the amount and requested an unequal division, alleging the marriage was for immigration purposes.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the wife to the husband as $3,660.57.

The court denied the wife's request for an unequal division, finding that the "unconscionability" threshold under the Family Law Act was not met, and the payment was not "disproportionately large" given the brief 17-month cohabitation period.

Credibility findings favored the respondent wife regarding asset valuations.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The plaintiff, an incarcerated individual, had commenced an action regarding a property transfer but failed to properly serve the statement of claim within the required six-month period.

Despite the defendants' numerous delays and failures to comply with previous court orders, the court granted the motion to set aside the noting in default because the underlying service of the statement of claim was defective.

The court deemed service effected and set a timetable for the delivery of a statement of defence and responding materials for a pending summary judgment motion.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The applicant claimed he needed the vehicle for his scrap metal business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had mitigated his income loss by finding temporary work and therefore had an alternative to the vehicle, failing to meet the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship.