Cynthia Petersen

In a family law trial where all other issues had been settled, the remaining dispute concerned ownership of a family cat and whether ancillary parenting relief could be ordered to ensure the child had access to the pet.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction in this trial to impose a location-specific parenting requirement because final minutes of settlement and a final order had resolved parenting issues and directed future disputes to arbitration, with any variation otherwise requiring a Motion to Change.

Applying property principles rather than best-interests analysis, the court treated the pet as personal property and used recognized pet-ownership factors to determine ownership.

On the evidence, the child did not own the cat, and the respondent was found to be the sole owner based on primary care, veterinary records, and the parties' implied understanding during the marriage.

The applicant was ordered to deliver the cat to the respondent.

The self-represented plaintiff sought to set aside an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a farm property, arguing it was executed after the irrevocability date had expired or, alternatively, under duress.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony unreliable and concluded that the irrevocability date had been validly extended and initialled before she signed the counteroffer.

The court also dismissed the duress claim, finding that while the plaintiff faced economic and time pressure due to a court order to sell the property, the pressure was lawful and did not deprive her of her free will.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendant corporation for unpaid electricity invoices.

The defendant's sole director repeatedly failed to attend examinations in aid of execution and failed to produce court-ordered financial documents, resulting in a finding of civil contempt.

At the sentencing phase, the court ordered the director to personally fulfill undertakings, produce the required documents, and pay $37,836.90 in substantial indemnity costs jointly and severally with the corporation, noting that the director's actions thwarted the plaintiff's enforcement efforts.

The parties separated and the respondent remained in the jointly owned matrimonial home.

After the respondent failed to respond to the application or participate in the proceedings despite multiple court-ordered substituted service attempts, the applicant obtained orders for the sale of the home and exclusive possession.

Following his eviction, the respondent brought an urgent motion to set aside the orders, claiming he had no notice of the proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's evidence that he did not receive the documents implausible and concluding he had proper notice but chose to ignore the proceedings.

In a family law proceeding, the court resolved a post-judgment dispute over the applicable pre-judgment interest rate on an equalization-related payment.

The responding party argued for the presumptive statutory rate under ss. 127 and 128 of the Courts of Justice Act, while the moving party sought an averaged market-based rate under s. 130.

The court held that significant market-rate fluctuations justified departing from the presumptive rate and exercising discretion to set a just rate.

Pre-judgment interest was fixed at 2.75%, and a final order was directed to issue on the amended draft.

The plaintiff moved for an extension of time to serve two expert reports after failing to meet the timelines under r.53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the r.53.08 leave factors, while not strictly binding on a pre-trial extension motion, should guide the discretion in the circumstances.

The court found no reasonable explanation for delay, concluding the non-compliance was a deliberate strategic decision rather than inadvertence.

The court also found prejudice to the defendant and undue delay to the scheduled trial if the extension were granted.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent corporation's solicitor of record on the grounds that the lawyer was taking instructions exclusively from two individuals with significant conflicts of interest relative to the corporation.

The applicant sought the appointment of an inspector to investigate the corporation's financial affairs, suspecting misappropriation of funds by a director and treasurer.

The court found that the two individuals instructing the lawyer had glaring conflicts of interest, creating a substantial risk of impaired representation and compromising the integrity of the administration of justice.

The court ordered the removal of the solicitor and required the corporation to retain new counsel with unconficted instructing parties.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a 17-year-old complainant.

The alleged offence occurred during a truck ride from Quebec to Ontario in November 2022.

The Crown alleged multiple instances of forced oral sex and digital penetration.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated and consented to all sexual activity.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as lacking credibility due to deliberate lies to police and inconsistencies between his police statement and trial testimony.

The court accepted the complainant's credible and coherent account of non-consensual sexual contact.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, rejecting the defence that the complainant had initiated the sexual activity.

The applicant was convicted at trial of one count of luring a person under 16 years by telecommunications, three counts of sexual assault, and three counts of sexual interference involving multiple child complainants.

He received a global sentence of 3 years' imprisonment.

He applied for bail pending appeal on three grounds: misapplication of the burden and standard of proof under R. v. W.(D.), insufficient reasons for conviction, and an unreasonable verdict on the child luring charge.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous but dismissed the bail application on public interest grounds, finding that the seriousness of the offences and the weakness of the grounds of appeal outweighed the reviewability interest despite minimal public safety concerns.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the plaintiffs in a Simplified Procedure action.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $82,805, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis of $53,826.

The plaintiffs opposed the costs award and argued the defendants' counsel engaged in unethical conduct.

The court found the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in bringing the motion given numerous factual disputes and the limitations of the Simplified Procedure rule.

However, the court reduced the costs award to $35,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the requested amounts were disproportionate to the claim value and inconsistent with Simplified Procedure principles.

The court sentenced B.O. for sexual interference and exposing a person under 16 to sexually explicit material, both involving his daughter, M.A. The court reviewed the circumstances of the offences and the offender, the harm to the victim, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 5 years for sexual interference and 2 years for exposing a child to sexually explicit material, with ancillary orders including prohibitions and registration requirements.

The decision applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Friesen and emphasizes the gravity of sexual offences against children, the importance of denunciation and deterrence, and the need for proportionality and parity in sentencing.

The court considered whether a domestic agreement between Delby Saulnier and Kelly Postma should be set aside for lack of disclosure and other reasons, and determined the parties' respective entitlements regarding a jointly occupied farmhouse property after their separation.

The court upheld the agreement, found that Saulnier was entitled to a monetary payment for his share of the increased equity in the farmhouse, and addressed claims for damages for conversion, spoliation, and intrusion upon seclusion.

Following a trial of a common issue in two consolidated applications, the court determined the beneficial ownership of a Mississauga property used as a Buddhist temple.

The applicants alleged that the registered owners held title in trust for a charitable corporation, while the estate contended the deceased monk beneficially owned the property personally.

Applying the law of trusts, the court found certainty of intention and certainty of objects, held that the corporation was ascertainable as the sole beneficiary, and concluded that the estate could not invoke the Statute of Frauds to defeat the oral trust.

The court further held that the corroboration requirement in s. 13 of the Evidence Act was satisfied and declared that the corporation is the sole beneficial owner, with the registered owners holding legal title in trust for it.

The court granted a stay of proceedings in a prosecution for historical sexual assault and physical assault, finding multiple and egregious breaches of the accused’s rights under section 7 of the Charter.

The breaches included lack of jurisdiction by military police, bias and improper involvement in family law proceedings, failure to preserve and disclose evidence, and destruction of relevant evidence.

The court found that the cumulative effect of these breaches undermined the integrity of the justice system and that no remedy short of a stay would suffice.

The accused, Anthony Bruzzese, was charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing Mr. M. twice in the abdomen.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of Mr. Karcz, an eyewitness, and Mr. M., the victim, despite their intoxication and memory gaps.

The defence argued for reasonable doubt due to the possibility of self-inflicted wounds and the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the stabbing.

The court found Mr. Karcz's and Mr. M.'s testimonies credible and reliable, despite minor inconsistencies and the victim's recovered memories.

The court dismissed the self-inflicted wound theory and the significance of absent forensic evidence given the overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally stabbed the victim with intent to kill.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and exposing his daughter to sexually explicit material.

The offences allegedly occurred when the daughter was 8 and 9 years old, during visits to the accused's apartment following her parents' separation.

The accused denied the allegations, arguing he was never alone with the complainant and that the allegations were fabricated by the mother to gain an advantage in family court.

The court admitted evidence of the accused's prior physical violence to provide context and explain the complainant's delayed disclosure.

Applying the common sense approach to child witnesses, the court found the complainant credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's exculpatory evidence due to material inconsistencies and deliberate lies.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant, 1737202 Ontario Inc., and personal defendants, Khalid and Qaiser, due to their default on a Credit Agreement, Personal Guarantee, and subsequent Forebearance Agreement.

Despite filing a Statement of Defence and agreeing to a timetable, the defendants failed to file responding materials or appear at the motion hearing.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the defendants relied solely on pleadings without adducing evidence.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of RBC for the outstanding amount, accrued interest, and full indemnity costs.

Jessica Martin applied for interim release from custody pending trial on charges including first-degree murder, forcible confinement, possession of stolen property, and obstruction of justice.

The murder charge carried a reverse onus for bail.

The court assessed the Crown's case, noting its weakness on the murder charge but strength on the obstruction charges due to intercepted communications and self-incriminating statements.

Despite the proposed supervision plan by her parents, the court found a substantial likelihood that the accused would interfere with the administration of justice if released, given her past actions and apparent willingness to deceive her sureties.

The application for bail was denied on the secondary ground, with the tertiary ground also supporting detention for the non-murder charges.

The parties separated after a 30-year relationship and have two adult children: one in university and one with a profound developmental disability.

The court determined the parties' respective incomes for child support purposes, imputing corporate pre-tax income and personal expenses to the respondent father.

The court applied a budgetary approach under s. 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine child support for the disabled adult child, factoring in his ODSP benefits.

The court also resolved disputes over the control of the children's RESP and RDSP accounts, retrospective and prospective section 7 expenses, and the applicant mother's request for a restraining order and communication protocol, which were dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the applicant's second Motion to Change a final child support order.

The applicant sought to reduce child support and rescind arrears, arguing a material change in circumstances and new evidence.

The court found no new evidence that was not available at the original trial and no material change in circumstances, as the applicant remained intentionally unemployed.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the applicant's Motion to Change, and ordered her to pay all outstanding costs and obtain leave before any further proceedings related to child support due to persistent non-compliance with court orders.