Cory A. Gilmore

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to dismiss Great Land (Westwood) Inc.'s application for expropriation compensation, arguing that the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) had exclusive jurisdiction.

Great Land sought a declaration of compensation for expropriated land and a a declaration regarding the validity of alleged contracts for nominal land dedication.

The court found that the essential character of Great Land's claim, including contractual disputes, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the OMB under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

Consequently, York's motion was granted, and Great Land's application was dismissed, with the matter directed to proceed via arbitration before the OMB.

Ricky DeSousa was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of evading police, and pleaded guilty to eight counts of robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors including the vulnerability of robbery victims, use of a weapon, injuries to victims, and the fact that aggravated assault victims were police officers.

Mitigating factors included DeSousa's guilty plea to robberies, triable issues on other counts, and community support for rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment, consisting of eight years consecutive for the robberies and five years concurrent for the aggravated assault and evasion of police, with the five-year sentence to be served consecutively to the eight-year robbery sentence.

Pre-trial custody credit of eight years and eleven months was applied, including an additional 90 days for harsh lockdown conditions.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA sample were also made.

The defendant, State Farm, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for chiropractic treatments and a declaration of entitlement to future medical rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment, noting the small amount in question ($4,090) and the availability of expert evidence.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proposed chiropractic treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, as expert opinions emphasized active, self-directed rehabilitation over passive treatments.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff, the Estate of Henry Goldentuler, sought damages against the defendants for intentional wrongful interference with commercial relations and breaches of trust/fiduciary duty, arising from the defendants' surreptitious removal of client files from Goldentuler's law office.

The defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim had been struck due to their failure to pay costs and repeated administrative dismissals of their appeals.

The court conducted an assessment of damages, considering expert evidence on lost fees and disbursements.

The court found the defendants breached their duties of loyalty and good faith.

Damages were calculated by applying a contingency factor for files that might not have settled (1/3 reduction) and a 44% reduction for overhead expenses, then a 50% reduction based on the original fee-splitting arrangement.

The court declined to award punitive damages for litigation delay, deeming it compensable by costs.

The defendants, Toromont Industries Ltd. (and Toromont Cat) and Caterpillar Inc., brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff Haliburton Forest & Wildlife Reserve Ltd.'s claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation related to the purchase of forestry equipment.

Toromont relied on entire agreement (EA) and limitation of liability (LL) clauses in the sales contracts.

Caterpillar argued it was not a party to the sales contracts and that its limited warranty excluded liability.

The court granted partial summary judgment to Toromont, dismissing most of Haliburton's claims but allowing a claim under the Sale of Goods Act for the purchase price of the equipment to proceed.

The court granted full summary judgment to Caterpillar, dismissing all claims against it, finding no privity of contract for SGA claims, no reasonable reliance on representations, and no duty of care for pure economic loss.

The case involved a 22-year marriage breakdown, addressing equalization of net family property, retroactive and ongoing spousal support, and child support for an adult dependent child.

The court determined the notional tax rate for the respondent's RRSP, calculated post-separation credits, imputed income to the underemployed respondent, and ordered spousal support considering the applicant's unemployability and the respondent's caregiving responsibilities for their autistic son.

A mutual non-communication order was also issued.

The applicant daughter moved for an order for directions under Rule 75.06 to challenge her deceased father's holograph will, which disinherited her and her brother in favour of his second wife.

The respondent wife opposed, arguing the applicant lacked a financial interest and sufficient evidence of suspicious circumstances.

The court found the applicant had a potential financial interest on intestacy and presented sufficient evidence—including the testator's brain cancer, psychiatric issues, and the will's vitriolic language—to support an inference of suspicious circumstances.

The court granted the order for directions and appointed an Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The plaintiff, Giustina Morreale, sued her sister, Elisabeth Romanino, alleging undue influence over their parents regarding an inter vivos gift of property.

The parents had transferred the equity from their home (Beck Drive) to the defendant and her husband for the purchase of a new home (Russell Stover Court), where they continued to live.

This transfer was contrary to the parents' mirror wills, which intended a more equal division of the Beck property between the sisters.

The court examined whether a presumption of undue influence applied and, if so, whether it was rebutted.

The court found no specific act of coercion or domination and concluded that the strong-willed father made his own financial decisions.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder of police officers, failing to stop his vehicle during a police pursuit, and aggravated assault of a peace officer, following a violent vehicular takedown.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, but sufficient to establish the lesser included offence of aggravated assault, based on objective foresight of harm.

The accused was also found guilty of evading police, as the court inferred he knew he was surrounded by officers.

The charge of aggravated assault of a peace officer was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The applicant, a professional corporation, sought a charging order against the respondent's property for outstanding legal fees from two matrimonial litigation matters.

The court dismissed the request for the Newmarket litigation, finding the applicant was not instrumental in preserving or recovering property in that context.

However, the court granted the charging order for the Lindsay litigation, broadly interpreting "recover" and "preserve" under section 34(1) of the Solicitors Act to include regaining possession of property wrongfully retained by another.

The court also affirmed that a charging order can attach to future funds and found prima facie evidence that the respondent might be unable to pay the fees without selling the property.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a declaration that the respondents breached sections 117 and 119 of the Condominium Act, 1998, by repeatedly refusing entry to their unit for necessary flood and mould repairs.

The applicant also sought an order compelling access for inspection and repairs.

The court found the respondents' conduct to be deliberately uncooperative, causing significant delays and creating a potential risk of damage to property and injury to other residents due to spreading mould.

The application was granted, ordering access for repairs, and the respondents were held responsible for the applicant's costs.

In a judge-alone criminal trial arising from allegations made by an estranged spouse, the court considered counts of sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and administering a noxious substance over the course of a multi-year marriage formed through an arranged marriage and immigration sponsorship process.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and a global assessment of credibility and reliability, the court found both parties gave plausible but sharply conflicting evidence, and identified inconsistencies and possible motive concerns in the complainant's account while finding the accused's evidence generally believable.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual activity was non-consensual, that bodily harm from anal sex was established, that the complainant had been forcibly confined, or that any alcohol or energy drink constituted a proven noxious substance on the evidence.

Acquittals were entered on all four counts.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home following her arrest for allegedly assaulting the respondent father.

The father brought a cross-motion for exclusive possession.

The court found that it was in the 15-year-old child's best interests to remain in the home pending its sale to minimize disruption.

The court dismissed both motions for exclusive possession and instead ordered a nesting arrangement where the mother resides in the home full-time except for alternate weekends when the father resides there.

A mutual restraining order was also issued.

The offender was sentenced after convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against his granddaughter arising from a single episode involving child sexual abuse, breach of trust, and nominal vaginal penetration.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence under ss. 718, 718.01, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, and treated the offender's position of authority, the victim's age, the continuing emotional abuse, and the serious victim impact as significant aggravating factors.

The offender's medical problems, including COPD, anxiety, depression, diabetes, hypertension, and alleged dementia, did not justify reducing an otherwise fit penitentiary sentence in the absence of evidence that treatment could not be provided in custody.

Applying the starting point authorities for sexual abuse of children, the court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence less eight days' pre-trial credit, together with ancillary orders.

The appellant was convicted of impaired operation and failing to remain, receiving an 18-month driving prohibition.

She applied for a stay of the driving prohibition pending her summary conviction appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, finding that the appeal based on circumstantial evidence was not frivolous, the appellant would suffer hardship due to her employment requirements, and she would not pose a danger to the public as a first-time offender.

The application was granted with a condition of zero blood alcohol while driving.

The mother brought a motion to stay a contempt order that granted the father make-up access time after she unilaterally suspended his access to their children.

The court first determined that jurisdiction for the appeal of the final contempt order lies with the Court of Appeal, not the Divisional Court.

In the alternative, applying the three-part test for a stay pending appeal, the court found the mother failed to establish that the contempt order was wrong, that the children would suffer irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The offender, a former financial advisor, was convicted of Fraud Over $5,000 for operating a Ponzi-type scheme over eight years, defrauding multiple victims, many of whom were friends or elderly clients.

The court found the offender's breach of trust and the devastating financial and emotional impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, ordered to pay restitution of $109,150, and issued a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount, with six years to pay following his release.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 for allegedly cashing cheques that should have been paid to a subcontractor's company for a commercial paving job.

The Crown alleged the accused registered a sole proprietorship with a similar name to divert the funds.

The court found the evidence of both the accused and the key Crown witnesses to be unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding the nature of their business partnership and the payment of materials.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The defence brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three expert witnesses for an upcoming jury trial involving charges of attempted murder and criminal negligence causing bodily harm following a police pursuit and 'rolling block' takedown.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey frameworks to assess the admissibility of the proposed experts.

The court denied the qualification of a ballistics expert, finding the evidence unnecessary and potentially distracting.

However, the court permitted the defence to call an expert in police training and use of force, as well as an expert in accident reconstruction, concluding that their testimony would assist the jury in understanding the chaotic scene and the context of the police actions.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action following the death of a 22-year-old man from an aortic dissection six days after he was treated and discharged from an emergency department.

The plaintiffs alleged the emergency physician breached the standard of care by failing to properly review the chart, taking a substandard history, and failing to consider cardiovascular diseases in his differential diagnosis.

The court found that the physician met the standard of care, as the patient's presentation was consistent with a musculoskeletal injury and the likelihood of an aortic dissection in a healthy 22-year-old was exceedingly rare.

The court also found that causation was not proven.

The action was dismissed.