Douglas J. Spiller

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel and operating a vessel with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on August 4, 2018, in Saugeen Shores, Ontario, where the accused allegedly operated a powerboat erratically, colliding with other boats and a breakwall.

The court conducted a voir dire on the voluntariness of statements and heard Charter applications challenging the admissibility of evidence and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court ruled that the accused's statements were voluntary, rejected Charter applications based on lost evidence and procedural breaches, and found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and proper Charter compliance regarding rights to counsel.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Perell J. dated March 29, 2019, and June 5, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents in the fixed amount of $11,000.

The plaintiff son and defendant father were involved in a family business dispute over well drilling companies.

The son brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to be appointed as a director and to have the corporate assets evaluated, while the father brought a cross-motion seeking to wind up the company.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the voluminous conflicting affidavit evidence and credibility issues required a full trial.

However, the court granted an interim order increasing the land rent paid by the corporation to the father based on an unchallenged appraisal.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff in an action concerning the purchase of a vacant building lot.

The defendants had attempted to file a notice of intent to defend and a statement of defence within the required timelines, but errors by a law clerk and the plaintiff's swift action to note them in default prevented the filings.

The court applied the tests for setting aside a noting in default and a default judgment, finding that the defendants had a plausible excuse, moved promptly, and presented an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion was granted, and the noting in default, default judgment, and writ of seizure were set aside.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an appeal from orders dissolving an interlocutory injunction and dismissing a contempt motion.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the orders were interlocutory in nature and therefore the proper appeal route was by leave to the Divisional Court, not direct appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Costs were awarded to the moving party.

This decision concerns a costs award following interlocutory motions in a contentious shareholder dispute.

The Plaintiffs had previously obtained an interlocutory injunction and subsequently brought a contempt motion, while the Defendants moved to dissolve the injunction and sought declaratory relief.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' contempt motion and dissolved the injunction, ordering the Plaintiffs to pay costs for their unsuccessful motions.

The Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $217,000 or partial indemnity of $149,000.

The Plaintiffs requested an offset.

The court ultimately awarded the Defendants $110,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding them to be the successful party on the relevant motions, and highlighted the "useless litigation" and high level of distrust between the parties.

This decision addresses competing motions in an oppression remedy action among shareholders of Innotech Safety Solutions Inc. The defendants moved to dissolve an interlocutory injunction and sought declarations regarding minority shareholders' voting rights.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for contempt due to alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders and sought to continue the injunction.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no willful disobedience and that any contempt had been purged.

The interlocutory injunction was dissolved, as the factual basis for its continuance was not established.

The court suggested that a winding-up application might be a more appropriate remedy given the corporate dysfunctionality.

The appellant sought leave to amend his statement of claim to correct a misnomer by substituting the proper defendant after the expiry of the limitation period.

The motion judge refused the amendment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant satisfied the "litigation finger test" for misnomer established in Lloyd v. Clark.

The appellant knew the proper defendant but failed to sue the proper party, and the intended defendant knew it was the intended defendant before the limitation period expired.

The court granted leave to amend and awarded costs.

The plaintiff, a 50% shareholder in a condominium maintenance business, brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against her former business partner and his wife, alleging misappropriation of corporate funds to purchase a townhouse.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants were dissipating or removing assets from the jurisdiction.

The court noted the defendant's offer to turn over all corporate assets to the plaintiff as compelling evidence against the risk of dissipation.

The Crown brought a certiorari application seeking to quash a trial judge’s disclosure order requiring the Crown to facilitate defence contact with two witnesses who were the complainant’s brothers in a criminal harassment prosecution.

The Crown argued that the order effectively compelled the witnesses to speak with defence counsel and exceeded the trial judge’s jurisdiction.

The court held that the order did not compel the witnesses to participate but merely provided a mechanism for voluntary contact while protecting their autonomy and ability to seek legal advice.

The ruling arose in the context of a Stinchcombe disclosure application where potential relevance to the complainant’s subjective fear was established.

The court concluded the trial judge acted within jurisdiction and that the disclosure mechanism appropriately balanced defence rights with witness privacy.

The defendant brought a third party records application seeking production of police misconduct records relating to three Ontario Provincial Police officers.

The court initially found the threshold of "likely relevant" had been met and ordered the OPP to produce the complaint and misconduct files for judicial inspection.

Upon review of the files, the court determined they were clearly irrelevant to the trial issues, including credibility and investigation quality.

The application was dismissed and the files were sealed pending any appeal period, after which they would be returned to the OPP.

The defendant brought applications for disclosure of police complaint and misconduct files relating to three Ontario Provincial Police officers who were to testify regarding the admissibility of a statement made by the defendant.

The applications were brought on two bases: first, as a McNeil records application seeking disclosure from the Crown; and second, as a third-party records application seeking production from the OPP.

The Crown advised that McNeil Reports had been reviewed and there was nothing to disclose.

The court found that the Crown had fulfilled its disclosure obligations under McNeil and dismissed the McNeil application.

However, the court found that the defendant had established "likely relevance" for the third-party records application and ordered the OPP to produce all complaint and misconduct files for judicial review.

Following a protracted family law trial primarily concerning the equalization of net family property and the valuation of the applicant's business, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the parties had divided success on the central issue of business valuation, and thus each party would bear their own costs for that portion of the trial.

However, the applicant was successful on the remaining issues, including retroactive support and the value of the matrimonial home.

The court concluded that none of the offers to settle triggered Rule 18(14) cost consequences and rejected allegations of bad faith from both sides.

The applicant was awarded costs fixed at $45,950 plus HST for the issues on which she succeeded.

The applicant brought a motion to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligations, arguing a material change in circumstances following his involuntary retirement and the depletion of his assets.

The court found that the applicant's $4.5 million severance payment should be treated as income replacement for four years, delaying the material change to January 1, 2012.

The court imputed income to both parties based on their capital assets and reduced the applicant's spousal support obligation to $5,099 per month.

The court also ordered the applicant to pay COLA arrears on an after-tax basis, eliminated his life insurance obligation, but maintained his obligation to provide health benefits.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The core issues at trial involved claims for retroactive child and spousal support, equalization of net family property, and a claim for unequal division under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

A significant portion of the trial focused on determining the fair market value of the applicant's 33.3% interest in a logistics company.

The court preferred the valuation evidence of the respondent's expert, with some modifications, valuing the interest at $358,500.00.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim that equalization would be unconscionable due to a post-separation decline in the company's value.

The court ordered the respondent to pay retroactive child support and reimburse the applicant for an overpayment of spousal support.

Ultimately, the applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $183,589.09 to the respondent.

The respondents in a family law proceeding brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an application alleging fraudulent conveyances and trust claims against a new spouse, brought to secure enforcement of spousal support arrears.

The applicant alleged that assets transferred to the new spouse, including real property and corporate shares, were held in trust for the support payor and were transferred to defeat recovery of indexed spousal support arrears under a 1999 consent judgment.

The court found the new civil action premature because a motion to change the spousal support order and determine arrears was already pending.

The court held that enforcement-related claims against the new spouse should await the determination of whether the payor remained liable for the arrears or whether the support order would be varied.

The action was therefore stayed pending the outcome of the motion to change.

In a family law dispute involving allegations of hidden assets and non-disclosure, the wife sought business records from a corporation formerly co-owned by her husband.

The husband had sold his interest to his business partner, who then refused access to the records.

The motion judge ordered the third-party partner and corporation to disclose the records under Rule 19(11) of the Family Law Rules.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the motion judge erred by relying on previous disclosure orders against the husband rather than making an independent determination of unfairness, the disclosure order was nonetheless justified.

The appeal was dismissed, but the husband was ordered to reimburse the third parties for their reasonable expenses in complying with the order.

The appellant executor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $75,000 in dependant's support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The trial judge found the respondent was a 'spouse' who had continuously cohabited with the deceased for at least three years prior to his death, and that her evidence was sufficiently corroborated.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding cohabitation or the quantum of support awarded.

The appellant estate executor sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from a judgment awarding the respondent a lump sum payment under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent argued the judgment was for support and not automatically stayed pending appeal.

The court granted the extension of time but ordered the appellant to pay the judgment amount plus pre-judgment interest in trust as a condition of the extension, finding the judgment was not stayed or alternatively lifting the stay.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the respondent.