David M. Goodman

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 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 appellant, Mr. Krebs, appealed a motion judge's decision that a cohabitation agreement with the respondent, Ms. Cote, was of no force and effect.

The motion judge erred by applying the common law rule that reconciliation terminates a separation agreement to a cohabitation agreement, by misinterpreting the parties' intentions, and by concluding that a $5,000 payment exhausted the agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal held that the common law rule for separation agreements does not extend to cohabitation agreements, as the latter contemplates cohabitation.

Interpreting the agreement holistically, the Court found it was intended to be long-lasting and apply despite separations and reconciliations.

The $5,000 payment was not a triggering event that exhausted the entire agreement.

Following a trial regarding the validity of codicils to a will, the court determined the allocation and quantum of costs.

The Objectors, who unsuccessfully challenged the codicils on grounds of testamentary capacity and undue influence, argued that costs should be paid out of the estate.

The court applied a blended costs approach, ordering the Objectors to pay the successful parties' costs incurred after a second mediation, at which point the Objectors should have reassessed their position.

The court also significantly reduced the costs claimed by some of the successful parties due to duplication of effort and excessive docketing.

This endorsement addresses compliance with a previous court order regarding rent payments and premises vacation.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached the order by contacting subtenants and sought an injunction.

The respondent claimed the applicant owed additional rent and credited subtenant payments received.

The court reaffirmed the terms of the prior endorsement, requiring the applicant to pay rent as due (less subtenant payments received by the respondent) and stating that failure to pay would release the respondent from their undertaking not to remove the applicant.

The court declined to hear the injunction request due to the lack of a formal motion and factum, noting potential issues with establishing irreparable harm.

Costs were reserved.

The Crown applied to have Derek Fellows declared a dangerous offender pursuant to section 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy by luring him into a forest and attempting forced anal intercourse, possessing child pornography, and breaching two court orders prohibiting contact with children.

The offender had a prior conviction in 2005 for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 7-year-old boy and multiple convictions for possessing child pornography.

The court found that all statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were satisfied and imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

Meron Asfaw Zere was charged with possessing 1.3 kg of heroin for trafficking following a controlled delivery.

The central issue at trial was Zere's knowledge of the package's contents.

The Crown argued Zere had actual knowledge or was wilfully blind, citing circumstantial evidence including his association with the co-accused, his role as driver, the nature of the package contents (non-North American phone chargers), and cell phone records.

The court admitted cell phone records under common-law exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding them reliable and necessary.

However, the court found reasonable doubt that Zere was the person sending or receiving the incriminating phone calls and text messages, or that his police interview statements unequivocally demonstrated knowledge or willful blindness.

Consequently, the court dismissed the charges against Zere and entered an acquittal.