C.J. Conlan

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life, uttering death threats, break and enter, and disobeying a court order, all committed against his separated spouse.

The court considered the offender's mental health issues and guilty pleas as mitigating factors, but weighed them against the highly aggravating domestic context and the planned nature of the arson.

The court imposed a global sentence of 77 months in custody, reduced to 23 months net after pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

During pretrial applications in a criminal proceeding, severe technological failures at the Milton courthouse involving remote Zoom interpretation and court reporting equipment caused significant delays and compromised the integrity of the record.

At its own instance, the Superior Court of Justice ordered that fully accredited French language interpreters attend the upcoming jury trial in person, and directed best efforts to secure in-person interpreters or functional simultaneous remote interpretation for the remainder of the pretrial applications.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an order under subrule 4(7) of the Family Law Rules to authorize independent legal representation for the parties' two children.

The applicant father opposed the motion, arguing it was unnecessary and would delay the upcoming trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the children's views and preferences would be adequately ascertained through existing assessments and that adding another layer of professional intervention was not in their best interests.

The applicant father brought a motion alleging the respondent mother breached a final parenting order and seeking make-up time and reunification therapy.

The court found the mother breached the order by withholding the child for a weekend in September based on an unreasonable interpretation of the summer schedule.

The court ordered four days of make-up time for the father but declined to order reunification therapy due to a lack of expert evidence demonstrating its benefit.

The Crown brought a pretrial application under section 714.2 of the Criminal Code to allow the complainant to testify remotely from Mexico, or alternatively, for an adjournment of the trial.

The complainant, who was unvaccinated against COVID-19, travelled to Mexico shortly before the scheduled in-person jury trial and refused to return due to fears of being forced into vaccination.

The court dismissed the remote testimony application, finding it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice given the complainant's voluntary travel, the poor quality of the internet connection, and non-compliance with notice requirements.

However, the court granted the Crown's alternative request for an adjournment to allow the serious sexual allegations to be tried on their merits.

Following two family law motions where the respondent father was largely successful, the court determined the issue of costs.

The father sought costs of $7,984.58 on a full indemnity basis or $5,269.82 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant mother, who became self-represented, argued against the quantum, citing her own legal costs and an inability to pay.

The court found no justification for full indemnity costs, noting the mother's lack of bad conduct and that the father's offer to settle was not beaten.

Rejecting the mother's claim of inability to pay, the court ordered her to pay partial indemnity costs of $5,269.82 within 60 days.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under section 12 of the Family Law Act to prevent the respondent from dissipating assets, specifically the proceeds from the sale of several real properties owned by his corporations.

The respondent argued the applicant must meet the strict test for a Mareva injunction.

The court rejected the application of the Mareva test, noting the respondent had previously admitted the applicant owned half the land.

The court granted a narrow preservation order restricting the depletion of the net proceeds of the sale of the specific properties.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the self-represented defendant for amounts owing on a personal line of credit and two credit cards, totaling $172,716.58.

The defendant did not dispute the existence of the credit facilities or the calculation of the amount owing, but argued the bank should have extinguished these debts when it enforced a security interest on his recreational property.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the bank had no obligation to extinguish the unsecured debts when enforcing its secured mortgage.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, with costs fixed at $6,500.

The accused applied for a bail review following a detention order based on the tertiary ground.

The accused proposed a release plan involving house arrest with his parents as sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found that the combination of the electronic monitoring proposal and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that a reasonably informed member of the public would not lose confidence in the justice system if the accused were released under strict conditions during a global health crisis, and granted the application for release.

Following a summary trial regarding unpaid invoices under a construction contract, the plaintiff was awarded a principal judgment with a set-off granted to the defendant.

The court received written submissions on prejudgment interest and costs.

The court clarified that prejudgment interest would be awarded in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, as the plaintiff's Statement of Claim did not plead the 24% rate requested at trial.

On costs, the court found that success was divided both financially and contextually, and ordered that each side bear its own costs.

Following a trial where the applicant was largely successful in obtaining child support, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant sought $20,000, while the respondent suggested $10,000.

The court found the applicant was more reasonable in settlement efforts and at trial, but reduced the requested amount because some issues were resolved on consent.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in costs, enforceable as child support.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment due to an expired limitation period, the parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendants sought $30,044.19, while the plaintiff suggested $15,000.

The court considered the principle of proportionality and the timing of the summary judgment motion, ultimately fixing costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants at $20,000 all-inclusive.

Following a family law trial where the applicant wife was largely successful, she sought costs of $11,042.34 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the settlement offers and found the applicant's offer was reasonable while the respondent's was not.

However, considering the respondent's difficult personal circumstances, including health problems and unemployment, the court tempered the costs award and ordered the respondent to pay $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant wife moved for an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and farm property so she could purchase her own residence.

The respondent husband opposed the motion and offered to pay a $470,000 advance on her equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an immediate sale would be oppressive as it would force the respondent and their daughter off the property and disrupt the farming operations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the $470,000 advance on equalization.

Following a five-day trial where the father successfully opposed the mother's request to relocate with their child to the United States, the father sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The mother argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the father was entitled to costs as the successful party but rejected substantial indemnity, noting the mother's conduct was not unreasonable despite her weak position.

After adjusting for arithmetic errors, non-trial related work, and excessive disbursement rates, the court awarded the father discounted partial indemnity costs of $15,000.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marijuana after police discovered a grow operation in his home.

The Crown sought 12 to 18 months in custody and a 20% forfeiture of the offender's real property, while the self-represented offender sought 9 months and a 5% forfeiture.

The court sentenced the offender to 12 months in custody (reduced to 11 months for pre-sentence custody) and ordered a 10% forfeiture of his ownership interest in the property, balancing his prior related criminal record with his guilty plea and significant medical issues.

Following a successful motion to vacate a construction lien and related Certificate of Action, the moving parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court found that the moving parties' first offer to settle met the requirements of Rule 49, entitling them to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

After accounting for costs already paid by the responding party and applying a proportionality reduction, the court fixed the costs award at $18,000.

The defendants brought a preliminary motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest and to amend their Statement of Defence to plead the Limitations Act.

The court allowed the amendment to the pleadings, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff at this early stage.

However, the court dismissed the request to remove counsel, finding no evidence that counsel acquired confidential information relevant to the current litigation during a prior, unrelated retainer.

Following a decision granting in part the defendants' motion to vacate a construction lien, the successful moving parties requested to address costs in writing.

The court granted the request, noting the general expectation that costs be dealt with at each stage of a proceeding and the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff.

A timetable for written costs submissions was established.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, careless storage of ammunition, and possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The offender was found with 21 grams of cocaine, cutting agent, and ammunition during a traffic stop.

The court considered the offender's related criminal record and the guilty pleas.

The court sentenced the offender to 90 days in custody in addition to 583 days of pre-sentence credit, declining to impose probation.