Deena Baltman

The accused, facing firearms charges, brought pre-trial motions challenging the validity of a search warrant and a warrantless search of an Instagram account under s. 8 of the Charter.

They sought further disclosure and leave to cross-examine the affiant, arguing that a confidential informant was actually a police agent.

The court dismissed the disclosure and cross-examination motions, finding no evidence to support the police agent theory.

The court upheld the search warrant, concluding the information provided by informants was compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court also dismissed the challenge to the Instagram search, finding the accused lost his reasonable expectation of privacy by accepting a stranger's follow request.

The applicant father sought to expand his access to his 8-year-old daughter to a full weekend with a 'black-out' period preventing communication with the respondent mother.

The child had been strongly resisting access visits, which the court found was tolerated and potentially encouraged by the mother.

The court ordered the parties to continue working with a parenting mediator to gradually increase the frequency and length of visits.

The court also ordered the mother to take assertive steps and impose tangible consequences to manage the child's behaviour and promote the access visits, warning that a black-out period would be considered if access did not improve.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty by a jury of importing nearly two kilograms of heroin into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 13 years, while the defence proposed 9 to 11 years.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, community service, and counselling as mitigating factors against the severe aggravating nature of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to 10.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.

The moving party, Aviva Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice O'Brien on September 29, 2020.

The respondent did not appear.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,800.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by Madam Justice L.C. Sheard on April 6, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the plaintiffs in the amount of $4,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order dated July 29, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and directed the parties to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $2,500, left to the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The tenant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued he was entitled to withhold rent because the landlord failed to provide its address under s. 12 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the single judge's decision that the issue was one of mixed fact and law.

The court noted the tenant had lived rent-free for 16 months and owed over $40,000 in arrears.

The applicant father brought a motion for the resumption of access to his 8-year-old daughter, which had been suspended following a physical altercation in June 2019.

Following the involvement of a parenting mediator, the parties agreed to resume in-person access visits.

The court ordered a specific schedule for the initial visits, with subsequent expansion to be guided by the mediator's recommendations.

The court also made orders regarding the apportionment of section 7 expenses for the child's therapy.

The offender, a 29-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of importing two kilograms of cocaine concealed in her luggage at Pearson Airport.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence sought three and a half years, arguing for a reduction due to Covid-19 risks in prison.

The court found no specific health vulnerabilities to justify a Covid-19 reduction but considered the offender's lack of prior record, compliance with bail, remorse, and strong family support as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, less three days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.

The applicant father sought resumption of access to his 7-year-old daughter after an altercation led to the child's refusal to see him.

This was the third hearing of the motion, following previous decisions that the respondent mother had wrongfully withheld access and that mediation was imperative.

A parenting mediator provided a progress report indicating positive developments, including daily video calls and two successful face-to-face visits.

The court ordered the continuation of mediation, addressed minor issues regarding fees and communication, and scheduled a further hearing for October 2020 to review progress.

The court awarded the respondent, Ana Tone, full indemnity costs totaling $165,696.48, plus $8,705.48 in outstanding costs, against the applicant, Raymond Tone, following a bitter family law trial.

The applicant was found largely at fault for rejecting multiple reasonable settlement offers and for unreasonable and bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including prolonging the trial with irrelevant testimony and changing counsel repeatedly.

The issues were numerous and complex, and the respondent achieved highly successful results on nearly all matters, far exceeding her offers to settle.

The court also noted the applicant's conduct wasted significant public resources.

The applicant sought bail on a charge of first-degree murder, which involved a highly organized, gangland-style execution.

The Crown opposed release on all three grounds: flight risk, danger to the public, and erosion of public confidence.

The court found the applicant's pre-apprehension behavior alarming, the offence grave, the Crown's case compelling, ties to the community minimal, the release plan weak, and a history of non-compliance with court orders.

Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on detention conditions, the court concluded that detention was necessary on all three grounds, particularly given the brazen nature of the attack and the applicant's role in a sophisticated criminal plot.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The Applicant Father sought resumption of access to his daughter, which had ceased after an altercation.

The court, following an earlier decision finding the Respondent Mother wrongfully withholding access, noted progress in virtual access and mediation.

However, it also addressed troubling behavior from both counsel and the Mother's non-compliance with a previous cost order.

The court ordered the Mother to pay outstanding costs, for parties to continue mediation, and scheduled a further return of motion to address access.

The trial addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division following a short, high-conflict marriage.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children and primary residence, with the applicant having alternate weekend access.

The applicant's income was imputed to $60,000 (or $78,102 for 2018) for child support purposes due to intentional under-employment.

No spousal support was awarded.

The date of separation was determined as February 1, 2015, and the matrimonial home was held in joint tenancy, rejecting the applicant's resulting trust claim.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of Ms. Bilek’s motion to stay an order removing a preservation order against Mr. Booth.

The court found Mr. Philbert’s (counsel for Mr. Booth) costs demand of $8,615.60 to be highly unreasonable and disproportionate, noting his failure to genuinely attempt resolution as instructed.

Ms. Chambers’ (counsel for Ms. Bilek) proposal of $3,000 was deemed reasonable.

The court fixed Mr. Booth’s costs at $3,000, inclusive, emphasizing the need for counsel to resolve issues, especially during strained court resources.

The respondent wife brought an urgent motion seeking a stay of a portion of a final order that directed the removal of a preservation order on the applicant husband's RRSPs, pending an appeal.

The appeal concerned the trial judge's interpretation of s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act regarding an unequal division of property based on unconscionability.

The motion was heard in writing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the three-part test for a stay pending appeal, the court found that the respondent failed to establish a serious question to be tried, concluding that the trial judge had properly applied the high threshold for unconscionability.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the resumption of access to his 7-year-old daughter after a 9-month cessation following a physical altercation during an access transition.

The respondent opposed, citing the child's trauma and anxiety, relying on reports from a pediatrician and social worker.

The court found the reports to be one-sided and unreliable, and criticized the respondent for obstructing mediation and failing to encourage access, deeming her actions a "wrongful retention" of the child.

The court ordered immediate daily virtual access and mandated mediation, with costs awarded against the respondent.

The self-represented tenants appealed two Landlord and Tenant Board decisions that dismissed their applications for substantial interference with reasonable enjoyment.

The Board had found the tenants deliberately used the wrong form (T2 instead of T6) to characterize maintenance issues as substantial interference.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Board's findings regarding the forms and its procedural decisions were questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness in the Board's decision to convert an oral hearing into a written one to accommodate the tenants' language barriers.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's proceeding, the respondent sought costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the hours and billable rates claimed to be reasonable.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $7,788.37.