Deena Baltman

The accused, charged with homicide, brought an application to adduce evidence that a third party was the true perpetrator.

The defence argued the alternate suspect had opportunity, motive, propensity, and was identified as the shooter.

The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient connection between the alternate suspect and the crime, as the evidence for opportunity, motive, propensity, and identification was seriously lacking or completely absent.

The plaintiff in a wrongful dismissal action sought leave under Rule 48.04 to bring a motion to serve an expert report regarding the definition of 'information technology professional' after the action had been set down for trial.

The defendant had pleaded that the plaintiff was exempt from overtime pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 because he was an information technology professional.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had known of this defence throughout the litigation and provided no plausible explanation for the delay in seeking an expert report beyond counsel's inattention.

The accused was tried on charges of invitation to sexual touching and child luring arising from an online MSN conversation with a 14-year-old complainant whom he knew through the cadets program and over whom he held authority.

The court admitted the complainant’s saved and printed copy of the chat, finding it sufficiently authenticated and admissible under the electronic document provisions of the Canada Evidence Act.

On the merits, the court found the accused knew the complainant was under 16, relying on the complainant’s express age statement, the statutory presumption, and the absence of reasonable steps to ascertain age.

The court rejected the submission that the exchange was merely a joke and held the communication was a persistent attempt to induce the complainant to expose himself and masturbate for money, establishing the requisite sexual purpose.

Guilty findings were entered on both counts.

The court approved a $7.5 million settlement in a national class action alleging defective organic roofing shingles manufactured and sold by the defendants.

The settlement provides compensation to class members based on a point system reflecting warranty benefits received and qualifying damage.

The court considered the likelihood of success, litigation duration, settlement terms, and objections, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite individual members' higher repair cost expectations.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Director's Delegate upholding an arbitration decision that denied him Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs) under the 1994 Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Delegate's interpretation of s. 20.1 was unreasonable and that the provision violated s. 15 of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of age.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's interpretation of the regulation was reasonable and that the applicant did not have a vested right to LECBs.

The Court also upheld the Delegate's finding that s. 20.1 did not create a discriminatory distinction based on age.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers, which found she made false reports of abuse against a fellow teacher and revoked her teaching certificate.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the Committee's factual findings or credibility assessments.

The court also upheld the penalty of revocation, finding it fell within the range of reasonable outcomes given the serious nature of falsely accusing a colleague of abuse.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring the respondent the legal and beneficial owner of 20% of the appellant company.

The appellants argued the respondent breached a trust agreement with his deceased father-in-law regarding a home purchase, which should block the share transfer.

The Divisional Court agreed with the application judge that the trust issue was irrelevant to the share ownership and that any claim under the trust agreement was statute-barred by limitation periods.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to set aside an order quashing its application for judicial review of a renewable energy approval for a wind project.

The motions judge had quashed the application on the grounds of prematurity because the applicant had appealed the approval to the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to set aside, agreeing that the application was premature as the administrative appeal process under the Environmental Protection Act had not yet been completed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Law Society Appeal Panel decision upholding a $17,500 costs award against him.

The costs were awarded after the applicant abandoned his third application for a paralegal license just days before the good character hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Hearing Panel retained jurisdiction to award costs despite the abandonment, properly considered the applicant's history of abandoning and reinstating applications as an abuse of process, and afforded the applicant procedural fairness.

The court fixed costs of the judicial review at $5,000.

The accused was tried on a charge of making child pornography available after images of his clothed nine-year-old niece were posted on a Russian website together with requests for sexualized commentary and ensuing sexually explicit exchanges.

The only live issue was identity, as the defence conceded that whoever made the posts committed the offence but argued that another person used the accused's identity and the restaurant Wi‑Fi beneath his apartment.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's testimony and found the circumstantial and admissions evidence overwhelming, including his police statement, his admitted sexual interest in children and his niece, and forensic evidence showing incest-related searches on his computer.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the online user and entered findings of guilt on both counts.

The plaintiff was injured in a multi-car collision.

The defendants admitted liability, and the case proceeded to a jury for damages.

This ruling addresses a threshold motion brought by the plaintiff to determine if her claim for general damages is barred by s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, which requires a "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function." The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright and found that the plaintiff's impairments to her ability to work and attend school were permanent, important, and serious, thus meeting the statutory threshold.

This is Mr. Kennedy's seventh bail application, seeking release on a bail review.

He is facing multiple serious charges including kidnapping, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, extortion, and uttering death threats, along with a probation breach.

The applicant proposed release to a surety with conditions, including an ankle bracelet.

The court dismissed the application, finding a substantial likelihood of him committing another offence if released, based on his lengthy and violent criminal record, including an assault conviction while in custody on the current charges, and the serious nature of the pending allegations.

The applicant sought a declaration of resulting trust over a portion of the proceeds from the sale of a home registered solely in the name of the second respondent, the first respondent's sister.

The applicant claimed to have contributed over half of the down payment, asserting the home was intended as a matrimonial residence.

The respondents denied any contribution from the applicant.

The court found no evidence to substantiate the applicant's claimed financial contributions, noting inconsistencies with his reported income and lack of documentation for significant cash transfers.

The claim for a resulting trust was dismissed in its entirety.

Bryan Motz, a 24-year-old with severe cerebral palsy, was the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action.

His mother, Leslie Motz, acting as litigation guardian (LG), sought to settle the action by dismissal without costs due to concerns about potential adverse cost awards.

Justice Daley rejected this settlement, found Leslie Motz in a conflict of interest, removed her as LG, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT).

The PGT subsequently moved to vary Justice Daley's order, arguing lack of notice to both the PGT and Leslie Motz, and insufficient grounds for the PGT's appointment.

The court found that both the PGT and Leslie Motz were entitled to notice and that the PGT's appointment as LG of last resort should only occur if no other proper person is willing and able.

The court varied Justice Daley's endorsement, reinstating Leslie Motz as LG and ordering the PGT to provide a report with objections or recommendations regarding the proposed settlement to Justice Daley.

The applicant was arrested at Pearson Airport after a border services officer suspected him of ingesting cocaine.

A subsequent hospital visit confirmed he had swallowed 52 pellets of cocaine.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application arguing his ss. 8 and 9 rights were violated and seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Crown conceded the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the officer's conduct was egregious, including misleading testimony and arresting the applicant as punishment for requesting counsel.

The court concluded the serious Charter-infringing conduct and its significant impact on the applicant outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits, and excluded the evidence.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Surveyor General of Ontario confirming the location of a road allowance under the Surveys Act.

The dispute arose because the confirmed location placed the road allowance on the portion of the appellants' property bordering water, thereby removing their riparian status.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Surveyor General had jurisdiction, the fact-finding hearing process was procedurally fair, and her substantive conclusions regarding historical survey evidence and natural boundaries were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The parties, who are common law parents of two young children, separated in 2013.

The applicant father, an undischarged bankrupt, sought joint custody and asserted property claims, while the respondent mother sought child support.

The court dismissed the father's property claims due to his lack of standing as an undischarged bankrupt.

Finding the father to be intentionally under-employed and rejecting his claims of medical disability, the court imputed an annual income of $41,392 to him for child support purposes.

Sole custody was granted to the mother due to the high level of conflict between the parties.

The accused applied under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code for production of counselling records from a sexual assault centre relating to the complainant.

The prosecution intended to call expert evidence regarding delayed memory recall, and the defence argued that the counselling process may have revived, refreshed, or shaped the complainant’s memories.

The court held that testimony at the preliminary inquiry suggesting counselling played a role in the emergence of additional memories met the threshold of likely relevance.

Given that the case turned largely on the complainant’s credibility and the reliability of recovered memories, judicial review of the records was necessary in the interests of justice to permit full answer and defence.

The appellants (defendants), an accounting firm, appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

The respondents (plaintiffs) had previously settled a fee dispute with the appellants and signed a mutual release.

Years later, the respondents discovered that a 'butterfly transaction' structured by the appellants resulted in a massive tax liability, and they sued for professional negligence.

The appellants argued the mutual release barred the claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the negligence claim was unknown and not in the contemplation of the parties when the release was executed, and therefore the release did not bar the action.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order regarding the waiver of solicitor-client privilege and document production.

By the time the appeal was heard, the trial had already commenced.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that the trial judge is best positioned to determine issues of privilege, fairness, and production mid-trial.