Chozik

The applicant, a local baseball and softball association, sought a declaration compelling the respondent, a provincial softball association, to grant it membership.

The respondent had denied the applicant's membership applications based on operating rules not contained in its by-laws.

The court found that the applicant had standing as a complainant under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, met the membership criteria set out in the respondent's by-laws, and that the respondent had no discretion to deny membership based on criteria outside its by-laws.

The application was granted.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter following his conviction for sexual assault at a second trial.

The first trial ended in a mistrial declared by the judge due to scheduling issues.

The court found that the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework.

While the mistrial was an exceptional circumstance, the subsequent 9.5-month delay to schedule the second trial was largely systemic and unreasonable.

The court also found the accused suffered specific prejudice due to the delay.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against minors, brought an application during his re-trial to admit evidence that he had offered to take a polygraph test when confronted with the allegations.

A similar application had been dismissed during his first trial, which ended in a mistrial.

The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 653.1 of the Criminal Code that the prior ruling was binding.

Furthermore, the court found that the offer to take a polygraph was inadmissible as it was not a spontaneous utterance, had marginal probative value, and its admission would be highly prejudicial to the fairness of the trial.

The plaintiff construction management company sued the defendant property owner for wrongful termination of a pre-construction and construction services contract.

The defendant argued the termination was justified because the plaintiff repudiated the contract by failing to perform core duties, meet the target budget, and meet the completion date.

The court found that the plaintiff continued to perform its duties, the budget and timeline delays were caused by design and permitting issues outside the plaintiff's control, and the plaintiff did not repudiate the contract.

The court held the defendant terminated the contract without justification and awarded the plaintiff $281,345.52 in damages for lost profits and outstanding invoices, subject to the contractual interest rate.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a six-year marriage characterized by family violence perpetrated by the applicant.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, while the respondent sought sole decision-making and primary residence.

The court found that the applicant engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, making joint decision-making impossible.

The court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the respondent, with the applicant having alternating weekend parenting time.

The court also determined the date of separation to be May 23, 2020, and ordered the applicant to pay equalization, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and proportionate section 7 expenses.

The court declined to admit surreptitious recordings made by the applicant.

The two accused were found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

Augustin was also found guilty of receiving a material benefit from human trafficking and procuring.

The accused exercised significant control over the complainant, forcing her to provide sexual services to numerous men in inhumane conditions and taking all her earnings.

The court sentenced Augustin to 8 years imprisonment (less 11 months credit) and St. Armand to 5 years imprisonment (less 6 months credit), noting the severe impact on the victim and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

Following a family law trial, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the exact quantum of retroactive spousal support, tax implications, and costs.

The court ordered the applicant husband to pay $86,108 in retroactive spousal support and a $36,433 catch-up payment, with no tax deductions applied to the lump sums, directing the parties to seek reassessment from the CRA.

The respondent wife was deemed the successful party at trial, having prevailed on the duration and quantum of support, and was awarded $30,000 in costs.

The father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for their 21-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances occurred when the child moved in with the father in 2018.

The court imputed an annual income of $75,000 to the mother, finding her intentionally unemployed.

A budget of $28,000 per year was set for the child's post-secondary education, to be shared proportionately.

The mother's claims for retroactive support and section 7 expenses were largely dismissed.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving, 'over 80', and dangerous driving.

He argued that the trial judge erred in her findings regarding identity and alleged violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the verdicts were unreasonable or the product of a material misapprehension of evidence.

The offender was found guilty of sexually interfering with and sexually assaulting his common-law wife's granddaughter over an eight-year period, beginning when the child was five years old.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to four years, while the defence proposed two years plus a day.

Applying the principles from R. v. Friesen, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and the profound breach of trust involved.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment for sexual interference, with the sexual assault count stayed under the Kienapple principle, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and its director for repayment of two loans and associated fees.

The court found that the fees charged on the loans amounted to effective interest rates of 150% and 180%, which exceeded the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code.

The court set aside the fees under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act but granted summary judgment for the principal amount of the loans.

The court also found the director personally liable as a guarantor, as she signed the promissory note without indicating she was signing solely in a corporate capacity.

The respondent wife brought a motion for interim spousal support, retroactive support, and security for support.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage with no children, and there was a significant income disparity between them.

The court found the wife had a needs-based entitlement to support but declined to base the quantum on the husband's anomalous 2020 income or to order a 50/50 net disposable income split.

The court imputed an income of $60,000 to the wife and based the husband's income on his 2019 earnings of $280,000, ordering interim spousal support of $5,000 per month retroactive to the date of notice.

Claims for further retroactive support were dismissed as premature pending full financial disclosure.

Following a 10-day trial on parenting issues where the respondent father was entirely successful, he sought partial indemnity costs of $350,000 plus half the costs of a section 30 assessment.

The court found that the applicant mother's conduct throughout the litigation was deplorable and unreasonable, driven by false allegations of abuse and alienating behaviours, though it fell just short of bad faith.

The court awarded the respondent his requested costs of $389,346.18, noting the amount was fair, reasonable, and proportionate given the complexity of the issues and the applicant's conduct.

The applicant sought costs following a motion where he was granted sole custody of the parties' child and the respondent's access was suspended, although his motion for contempt was dismissed.

The applicant sought $15,000 out of a total bill of $23,780.51.

The court found the applicant was the successful party, had made a favourable offer to settle, and behaved reasonably.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, finding the amount fair, proportionate, and reasonable given the complexity and significance of the issues.

The applicant sought costs following his successful defense against the respondent's motion for financial disclosure and his successful cross-motion.

The court found the applicant behaved reasonably and met his disclosure obligations, while the respondent's conduct was unreasonable, overbroad, and akin to a fishing expedition.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $16,608.55, representing 75% of his actual costs, payable by the respondent at a rate of $1,000 per month.

The parties, who separated in 2016, sought a final order to resolve remaining issues regarding their two children, including the parenting schedule for holidays, sharing of private school tuition and other section 7 expenses, and RESP contributions.

The court ordered a fixed parenting schedule for holidays to minimize conflict, found that private school tuition was a necessary and reasonable section 7 expense to be shared equally, and ordered the applicant to pay her share of the tuition retroactive to the date of separation.

The court also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant for half of her post-separation contributions to the joint RESP.

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to his persistent failure to comply with multiple court orders.

The respondent had failed to pay two previous costs awards, failed to return to arbitration, failed to pay ordered child support, and breached terms regarding overnight access.

The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, deliberate, and extreme.

Concluding that no lesser remedy would suffice, the court struck the respondent's Answer and allowed the applicant to proceed to an uncontested trial.

The applicant mother sought joint custody, parallel decision-making, and equal parenting time of the parties' 10-year-old child.

The respondent father sought sole custody and decision-making responsibility, with the child spending 5 out of 14 days with the mother, along with therapeutic interventions.

The court found that the mother engaged in egregious post-separation conduct, including making unfounded allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the father, which caused emotional harm to the child and raised significant concerns of parental alienation.

Relying on expert assessments, the court concluded that the mother was unable to co-parent and that her hostility towards the father remained unresolved.

The court awarded sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence to the father, limited the mother's parenting time to 5 out of 14 days, and ordered therapeutic supervision for the mother.

The applicant sought spousal support and property relief following a 35-year marriage.

The respondent husband, residing in Dubai, had obtained a Sharia 'talaq' divorce without notice to the applicant.

The court refused to recognize the foreign divorce under the Divorce Act, finding a lack of natural justice.

The court awarded the applicant indefinite spousal support, payable as a lump sum from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The court also found a resulting trust over properties held by the parties' daughters and vested the respondent's interest in those properties in the applicant to secure support arrears.

The moving parties (two fathers) sought full indemnity costs of approximately $75,000 following a successful motion that changed the respondent mother's parenting time to supervised access.

The court found that while the fathers were successful and presumptively entitled to costs, their claim was unreasonable and disproportionate for a one-hour motion.

The court also criticized the unnecessary and ill-conceived contempt motion brought by one of the fathers, which unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $20,000, apportioned equally between the fathers.