Conlan

In a family law trial concerning whether two young children should be returned to Dubai, the respondent mother brought an application to adduce expert opinion evidence from a psychotherapist.

The proposed evidence concerned the potential emotional and psychological impact on infants separated from their primary caregiver.

The applicant father opposed the admission of the evidence.

Following a voir dire, the court applied the test for expert evidence and found the proposed expert was properly qualified and capable of giving fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

The court granted the application, permitting the expert to testify strictly on the potential impact of separation from a primary caregiver, but prohibited her from opining on the specific attachment of the children to either parent.

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder for shooting and killing his domestic partner in their backyard.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 16 to 17 years, while the defence sought 12 to 13 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the domestic nature of the crime and use of a firearm, against mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of prior record, and cooperation with police.

Applying the McKnight range for domestic homicides, the court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 14 years.

Following the dismissal of the respondent father's motion, the applicant mother sought costs.

The court rejected the father's argument that success was divided, noting that every request made by the father in the underlying motion was dismissed.

The court awarded the mother partial indemnity costs of $17,000, taking into account the parties' financial means and the mother's reasonable settlement offers.

The moving party brought motions to declare the plaintiffs' construction liens expired under the Construction Lien Act.

The substantive relief was granted on consent.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court declined to award costs to the moving party, finding that its counsel had engaged in sharp practice by failing to respond to correspondence from opposing counsel that revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that correcting this clear mistake would not have sacrificed the client's rights and that the motions could have been brought ex parte or in writing.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking expanded access to the parties' child, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and an advance equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety.

The court declined to expand access pending a court-ordered section 30 assessment, noting the father had delayed the assessment by failing to pay his share of the retainer.

The claims for spousal support and an advance equalization payment were dismissed due to conflicting evidence requiring a trial and the father's failure to comply with a prior financial disclosure order.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault against the minor granddaughter of his long-time girlfriend.

The Crown applied to admit the complainant's video-recorded statement under section 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code, which was granted.

However, the court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence, particularly when compared to the credible testimony of her grandmother.

Finding the complainant's evidence unreliable and prone to exaggeration, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for assaulting a peace officer and attempting to disarm a peace officer.

The charges arose after police forcibly entered his home without a warrant in response to a 911 call regarding a domestic dispute.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider whether the police had reasonable alternatives to a forced entry, as required by the Godoy framework.

The court concluded the police were not acting in the lawful execution of their duties, quashed the convictions, and entered acquittals.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for indecent exposure under s. 173(2) of the Criminal Code.

The charge arose from an incident where the appellant exposed his penis to a minor in a public parking lot.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider the defence of accident and reversed the burden of proof when assessing his testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge did not explicitly mention the defence of accident, the reasons as a whole demonstrated he was alive to the issue.

The court also found that although the trial judge erred in commenting on the appellant's failure to explain why witnesses would lie, the error was harmless and the curative proviso applied given the formidable Crown case.

The applicant mother and respondent father both brought motions seeking primary residency and to determine the school enrollment for their 12-year-old son after both parents relocated to different cities.

Given the conflicting evidence, lack of cross-examinations, and absence of input from the child, the court declined to make a substantive residency order.

Instead, the court made an interim interim without prejudice order requiring the child to attend school remotely through a school in the father's jurisdiction, while ordering the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and a Voice of the Child Report.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a consent Final Order to have the children relocate to live with him and attend school in person rather than remotely.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to transfer the case to Oshawa following her move to Little Britain.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she had breached the prior order by moving without proper notice.

The court also dismissed the father's motion, noting a lack of urgency, the absence of input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and declining to interfere with the mother's final decision-making authority regarding remote schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No costs were awarded.

In the context of a motion to change a final support order, the parties brought cross-motions.

The mother sought additional financial disclosure regarding the father's corporate income, while the father sought a retroactive reduction in child support because the eldest child had moved in with him.

The court struck portions of the mother's affidavit as irrelevant, ordered the father to provide most of the requested financial disclosure to allow the mother's expert to assess his income, and granted the father's request to retroactively reduce his child support obligation and require the mother to pay support for the eldest child.

The plaintiff was injured while attempting a back flip at the defendant's indoor trampoline park.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the electronic waiver signed by the plaintiff at a kiosk barred the action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the defendant took reasonable steps to bring the terms of the waiver to the plaintiff's attention, given the plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence that he was rushed through the process.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment regarding a failed real estate transaction, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The plaintiffs had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for less than the judgment amount.

The court awarded elevated costs of $80,000 to the plaintiffs, citing the defendant's inappropriate conduct, which included making unfounded allegations of fraud and deceit against the plaintiffs' counsel.

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a final order granting him bi-weekly in-person access to his daughter, which the mother had unilaterally suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court established a three-part test for such suspensions, holding that there is a presumption that court-ordered access should continue, the suspending parent bears the onus to rebut this presumption, and cogent medical evidence is required to do so.

Finding that the mother failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to justify a complete suspension of access, the court ordered that in-person access resume with strict adherence to health precautions.

The applicants sought an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties on January 13, 2020.

The respondent's counsel had withdrawn from the file.

Due to the urgency of the matter and the suspension of regular court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the court ordered immediate compliance with the Minutes of Settlement and directed the respondent to provide contact information for his real estate legal representative and file a Notice of Intention to Act in Person.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown objected to the defence counsel's reference to 'blind couriers' in their closing address, arguing there was no evidence of their existence.

The trial judge declined to instruct the jury to ignore the remark, finding it was a permissible submission that a person could import a substance without knowledge.

The judge noted that in a circumstantial case, inferences consistent with innocence do not require proven facts, and the agreed statement of facts already implied the existence of blind couriers.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit lay opinion evidence from a border services officer that the accused's empty small suitcase felt abnormally or unusually heavy.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer lacked the necessary experiential capacity to form the opinion due to his inexperience.

Alternatively, the court held that the evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value, as the jury might unreasonably rely on it to infer the accused's knowledge of the cocaine.

The applicant landlord and respondent tenant brought cross-applications regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease.

The landlord sought a declaration that the lease expired in 2029, while the tenant argued it expired in 2039.

The tenant also sought orders requiring the landlord to replace the roof and parking lot, and an injunction regarding access to a parcel of land.

The court found the lease documents were ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence, concluding the lease expires in 2039.

The court dismissed the tenant's counter-application, finding the landlord was not obligated to replace the roof or parking lot, and an injunction was premature.

Following a trial regarding scaffolding rental and demobilization expenses, the plaintiff obtained judgment for $107,091.30 out of a claimed $471,436.41.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $158,096.83, while the defendant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The court found the defendant was the more successful party at trial, as the plaintiff failed on the major issue of demobilization expenses and recovered less than a quarter of its claim.

As the plaintiff did not beat any of its settlement offers, the court ordered each side to bear its own costs.

Following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's action against several defendants under Rule 2.1.01, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued that the claim raised novel issues, the costs claimed were excessive, and an award would cause undue hardship.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the claims were not novel and there was no evidence of impecuniosity.

The court awarded global costs of $10,500 to the successful defendants, applying a 20% reduction to the amounts claimed to reflect the possibility that the defendants could have filed a joint motion.