David M. Goodman

The applicants sought to remove the estate trustees of the deceased's estate and testamentary trusts, alleging benign neglect and various accounting irregularities.

The trustees brought applications to pass the accounts of the estate and the Rosenberg Trust.

The court dismissed the removal application, finding no evidence of misconduct or neglect that would justify interfering with the testator's choice of trustees.

The court also dismissed the applicants' objections to the accounts, except regarding the trustees' pre-taking of compensation through blended professional invoices.

The accounts were passed with the trustees' compensation reduced to account for the pre-taking.

The applicant brought a motion for outstanding financial disclosure in a long-running family law matter involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, a self-employed dentist operating multiple dental practices, brought a cross-motion for disclosure regarding the matrimonial home.

The court granted the majority of the applicant's disclosure requests, finding the respondent's financial records relevant to assessing whether a disconnect exists between his reported income and lifestyle, and noting that two prior disclosure orders remained unfulfilled.

The court declined certain requests as premature, including those affecting non-parties who had not been served.

The respondent's cross-motion regarding the matrimonial home was granted.

Ninety days was provided for compliance with most items.

Vernon Holder was charged with attempted murder and seven other violent crimes against the complainant, KP.

The court found Holder not guilty of attempted murder and threatening death, and not guilty of assault with a motor vehicle.

However, he was found guilty of aggravated assault (as a lesser included offense of attempted murder), assault with a beer bottle, assault with a wine bottle, assault with a cellphone, and assault causing bodily harm.

A common assault charge was stayed under Kienapple principles.

The judgment discusses the admissibility of a 911 call as res gestae and as part of the narrative, and applies the R. v. W.(D.) framework to assess the evidence, finding the accused's testimony to be untruthful.

The defendant, BDA Inc., brought a motion to reduce the bond filed as security in a construction lien matter, arguing that funds paid to its lawyers in trust, pursuant to an ODACC adjudication determination, should be credited against the lien amount.

The plaintiff, High Tech Power Inc., opposed the full reduction, contending that funds held in trust by the defendant's counsel were not "paid" to the lien claimant and thus could not stand as security.

The court ruled that funds held in a lawyer's trust account on behalf of the client do not constitute payment to the lien claimant and cannot be considered security for the lien, as they do not ensure the flow of money as intended by the Construction Act.

The motion for a full reduction was dismissed, and the bond was reduced only by the amount High Tech Power Inc. had consented to.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault causing bodily harm, assault, and forcible confinement.

The central issue was consent, with conflicting testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The court found the complainant generally credible but noted issues with her testimony regarding intoxication and the sequence of events.

While the defendant's character was poor, his testimony on consent was clear and precise.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent for sexual assault and the elements of assault and forcible confinement.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

This is an appeal of a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred by permitting extensive cross-examination of the s. 752.1 expert by the Crown after the defence had cross-examined him, which allegedly undermined the fairness of the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found that while the procedure was unusual, it did not result in unfairness or affect the outcome.

The sentencing judge's conclusion that there was no reasonable expectation that measures other than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect children, given the offender's history of refusing treatment, was upheld.

The appeal was dismissed.

This case involved a construction lien action and counterclaim concerning renovation work at York University.

Monalt Environmental Inc. (subcontractor) sued BDA Inc. (contractor) for unpaid work, while BDA counterclaimed for completion costs, alleging Monalt failed to complete the full scope of demolition work, specifically stairs and a ceiling slab.

The court found that Monalt's contractual scope of work did include the disputed demolition.

Monalt breached the contract by refusing to complete this work and suspending operations without a contractual basis for demanding payment.

BDA was justified in withholding payment.

The court assessed BDA's proven damages for completion costs and set them off entirely against Monalt's claim for unpaid amounts, resulting in no net amount owing to Monalt and no judgment for either party on their respective claims.

This decision addresses pre-trial applications in a human trafficking case.

The accused sought production of third-party records and leave to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity under section 276(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown also sought leave to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity under common law principles.

The court granted the defence's application for third-party records in part, ordering specific police records to be produced.

The applications regarding other sexual history evidence were also granted in part.

The Crown was permitted to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior involvement in the sex trade, including sexual photographs and her street name.

The defence was permitted to cross-examine the complainant on whether her prior sex work was independent and on specific text messages with the accused that might contradict her narrative of being trafficked.

However, certain evidence, such as a police officer's text message and later police records suggesting independent sex work, was deemed inadmissible due to lack of relevance or not constituting a specific instance of sexual activity.

This endorsement addresses costs following a prior decision where the plaintiff, Jamshid Nayyer, was awarded damages against the defendant, Linda Wang.

Nayyer sought substantial indemnity costs against Wang.

The co-defendant, Simon Ni, against whom the action was dismissed, sought costs against Nayyer.

The court awarded Nayyer full partial and substantial indemnity costs against Wang, totaling $128,627.17.

The court also awarded Ni costs of $2,938, but ordered them to be paid by Wang, not Nayyer, citing Ni's benefit from Wang's actions, his support of dishonest evidence, and "unclean hands" regarding taxes.

Prejudgment interest was set at 2% from October 28, 2018, the date the cause of action arose.

The Applicant (Father) brought two motions seeking primary residence and decision-making responsibility for the children, or alternative parenting arrangements, and a declaration that the Respondent (Mother) breached a prior order, seeking to strike her pleadings.

The Respondent (Mother) brought a cross-motion to terminate reunification counselling with Accendus Group.

The court dismissed the Applicant's motions, finding his evidence unreliable and that a drastic change in parenting arrangements was not in the children's best interests.

The court also found the Respondent did not breach the prior order, as Accendus Group had misconceived its role as evaluative rather than therapeutic.

The Respondent's motion to terminate Accendus Group's involvement was granted.

The court provided directions for the payment of Accendus Group's invoices, holding the Applicant liable for costs related to Accendus Group's affidavit sworn in his support.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, his former mother-in-law's daughter and her husband, alleging an oral agreement to exchange his 20-percent beneficial interest in a jointly purchased property for sole ownership of a condominium owned by the defendant.

The defendant refused to convey the condominium after the plaintiff separated from her mother.

The court found that the plaintiff had established the oral agreements and made the required payments.

The court held that the Statute of Frauds did not bar the claim because it was not pleaded and the doctrine of part performance applied.

The court awarded the plaintiff $555,000 in damages for breach of contract, or alternatively for unjust enrichment, against the defendant who owned the condominium.

The applicant, acting as guardian of property for her incapable spouse, brought an application to pass her accounts.

The Public Guardian and Trustee objected to several categories of expenses, including unsupported expenses for the sale of a property, unknown credit card payments and transfers from a joint account, pre-guardianship medical expenses, and past legal fees.

The court found that the applicant breached her fiduciary duty by failing to provide vouchers for many expenses and commingling funds.

The applicant was ordered to reimburse the incapable person's estate for the unsupported expenses and transfers, though she was permitted a partial set-off for expenses incurred in Greece immediately following the spouse's accident.

The applicant was also ordered to pay costs personally.

During the fifth day of trial, the defendants sought to call a handwriting expert whose report had been served but not listed in pre-trial documents or trial management forms.

The plaintiff opposed, citing significant prejudice due to lack of opportunity to prepare a responding expert report or adjust trial strategy.

The court denied the defendants' request, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness, the prevention of trial by ambush, and adherence to the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Supreme Court of Canada's call for timelier and more affordable trials.

This criminal trial concerned an allegation of sexual assault by G.P. against E.C. at a New Year's Eve party.

The case primarily hinged on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, the accused, and a third witness (D.T.), all of whom were intoxicated to varying degrees.

The court rejected the accused's denial, found the third witness credible, and accepted the complainant's testimony, which was corroborated by the accused's admission to the third witness.

The court found the accused guilty as charged.

Bronson Lake pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his girlfriend, Kim Gagne.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility.

The Crown sought 16 years, while the defence argued for a lower end of the range, emphasizing the guilty plea.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the brutality of the domestic violence and lack of clear mental illness, and mitigating factors, such as the guilty plea and lack of prior criminal record.

The judge imposed a life sentence with 14 years of parole ineligibility, finding the brutality of the murder warranted a strong denunciatory sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000 and money laundering after operating a $29 million Ponzi scheme called Debit Direct.

He sold fake point-of-sale debit terminals to hundreds of investors and transferred the funds to the Dominican Republic.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years in prison, less pre-sentence custody, and ordered $26.9 million in restitution along with a matching fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The projected delay from arrest to the end of the trial was 39.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the delay was primarily attributable to the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused significant court closures and systemic backlogs.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant's successor sought to continue the proceeding with itself as defendant, declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired, pay out security, and dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff cross-moved to restore the action to the trial list.

The court found the lien expired due to untimely preservation and ordered the security returned to the defendant.

However, the court refused to dismiss the action for delay, finding the defendant's complaint unreasonable given its own default.

The action was restored to the trial list as an ordinary contract claim, and the prior noting in default of the original defendant was set aside, allowing the successor to defend.

The applicants sought an order for the partition and sale of a residential property co-owned with the respondent.

Due to the parties' inability to cooperate, the applicants requested the appointment of a third-party sales officer.

The court granted the application, appointing RSM to conduct the sale process to avoid further disputes and legal costs.

Costs of $15,833 were ordered to be paid to the applicants from the proceeds of the sale, effectively spreading the cost among all four owners.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims and crossclaims, and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-motion.

The plaintiff requested $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant did not provide costs submissions despite an extension.

The court found the plaintiff's costs generally reasonable but reduced the amount to account for the attendance of two senior counsel at the hearing.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable within 30 days.