Erika Chozik

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce an alleged agreement to purchase Bitcoin from the defendants.

The plaintiff had wired $171,791 to the defendants, but no quote for the quantity and price of the cryptocurrency was ever provided or accepted, unlike in their previous transaction.

The court found that there was no enforceable contract because essential terms were missing.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to return the funds with interest based on unjust enrichment.

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel of record, arguing a disqualifying conflict of interest and that counsel was a likely material witness.

The court found that the counsel had previously acted for the defendant in drafting a trust agreement and had received relevant confidential information regarding an income-splitting arrangement central to the current litigation.

The court also determined that counsel was a necessary witness regarding a key shareholder's knowledge of the income splitting.

The motion was allowed and counsel was removed.

The moving party, a franchisor based in India, sought injunctive and mandatory relief against its franchisee and the franchisee's operating principal, including an order for documentary productions, payment of outstanding royalties and an exit fee, a Mareva injunction freezing all defendants' assets, and ancillary examination orders.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety.

The request for documentary productions was premature as affidavits of documents had not yet been exchanged and discoveries had not been conducted.

For monetary relief, the court applied the higher strong prima facie case threshold, which the moving party failed to meet given serious disputed issues concerning personal liability of the individual defendant, royalty rate reductions, and the definition of "net sales." No irreparable harm was established as the franchise had ceased operations and any brand damage was compensable in damages.

The balance of convenience weighed heavily against granting relief that would amount to execution before judgment.

The Mareva injunction was denied for absence of any evidence of risk of asset dissipation.

The court characterized the motion as frivolous and vexatious, relevant to the assessment of costs.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, and failing to comply with a release order in relation to his former intimate partner.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess the conflicting testimony of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused's evidence to be generally credible and reliable, while identifying significant concerns with the complainant's credibility, including exaggerated claims and physical impossibilities in her account.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove the essential elements of any of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's dismissal of impaired operation and "over 80" charges against the respondent.

The trial judge found the certificate of qualified technician (CQT) inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove that the respondent was "given" a copy of the certificate as required by section 320.32(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by requiring proof beyond merely showing the document to the accused.

The appellate court dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding was a question of fact, not law, and that "given" requires permanent transfer of the document to the accused, not merely temporary display.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with his three-year-old daughter, possession of child pornography, and making child pornography.

The Crown sought 15 years imprisonment; the defence sought 10 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 years imprisonment (7 years for sexual interference, 2 years consecutive for possession, and 3 years consecutive for making child pornography), with credit for 677 days of pre-trial custody.

The court found the breach of trust profound, the victim extremely young, and the collection of 19,130 child pornography images highly aggravating.

The court recognized the accused's genuine remorse and guilty plea as significant mitigating factors but found insufficient insight into his offending behaviour.

Ancillary orders were imposed including SOIRA registration, DNA order, forfeiture of devices, and a section 161 order for 20 years.

This decision addresses a motion for directions regarding the transportation and housing of an in-custody accused, Matthew McQuarrie, during his murder trial in Owen Sound, Ontario.

The court details the significant logistical and fairness challenges posed by the closure of the local jail, resulting in daily lengthy and inhumane commutes from the Central North Correctional Centre.

The ruling describes the evidence on transportation, alternate housing, and access to disclosure, and ultimately orders exceptional accommodations to ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial, including direct transport, access to disclosure, and use of technology.

The accused, Ivan Marincic, was sentenced for dangerous driving simpliciter after a motor vehicle collision caused life-altering injuries to another driver.

The sentencing hearing addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to award damages or costs for serious Charter violations by police during Marincic's arrest.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award civil damages or costs in a criminal proceeding, emphasizing that such remedies must be sought through civil actions.

Despite the severe police misconduct, a stay of proceedings was deemed inappropriate due to the seriousness of the offence and the victim's injuries.

As a remedy for the Charter violations, the court imposed a significantly reduced sentence of nine months, to be served as a conditional sentence.

The applicant, a local baseball and softball association, sought a declaration compelling the respondent, a provincial softball association, to grant it membership.

The respondent had denied the applicant's membership applications based on operating rules not contained in its by-laws.

The court found that the applicant had standing as a complainant under the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, met the membership criteria set out in the respondent's by-laws, and that the respondent had no discretion to deny membership based on criteria outside its by-laws.

The application was granted.

This case concerns an application by Kelly Martin to set aside the sale of her home following a default judgment for foreclosure.

Martin had lost her home due to a missed $650 mortgage payment and subsequent actions by the mortgagee, 11037315 Canada Inc. (110), and the purchaser, 2670082 Ontario Corp. (267).

The Court of Appeal had previously set aside the default judgment but ordered a trial of an issue to determine if 267 was a bona fide purchaser for value without actual notice that Martin occupied the property and had a potential claim to set aside the default judgment.

The court found that 267 was not a bona fide purchaser, as its principal (Mangal) and solicitor (Dhillon) had actual notice of Martin's occupancy and potential claim, evidenced by the rapid, below-market sale, the prior aborted sale to another entity, and defects in the foreclosure process.

Consequently, the sale of the property to 267 was set aside.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a recorded telephone conversation between the accused and the complainant in a criminal trial involving charges of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The defence opposed its admission, arguing high prejudice due to evidence of other discreditable conduct and other sexual activity.

The court ruled the recording admissible, finding its probative value, particularly the accused's admissions regarding the alleged assaults and his state of mind concerning consent, outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court emphasized the necessity of precise jury instructions to prevent misuse of the evidence for propensity reasoning or misapplication of consent law.

The Applicant sought a contempt finding against the Respondent for alleged breaches of a final order.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that contempt is a remedy of last resort in family law, requiring strict procedural adherence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Applicant failed to exhaust other enforcement avenues and brought the motion on a regular list despite material facts being in dispute, necessitating a viva voce hearing.

Costs were awarded to the Respondent, and an order for the appointment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer was issued on consent.

Matthew McQuarrie, charged with first-degree murder, discharged his third lawyer and intended to self-represent.

The Crown applied for orders appointing amicus curiae and counsel under s. 486.3 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the deceased's parents.

The court granted both applications, appointing the accused's former counsel, Anthony Bryant, as amicus with an expanded adversarial mandate, and counsel under s. 486.3 for specific cross-examinations, with the possibility of expansion.

The decision addressed the suitability of former counsel as amicus and the scope of their duties, emphasizing the need to protect the court process and ensure trial fairness given the accused's behaviour and the complexity of the case, while avoiding trial adjournment.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an equal/shared parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The applicant mother opposed, seeking to reduce the father's parenting time.

The court rejected the mother's position, finding she unilaterally created the post-separation status quo by withholding the children without justification.

While giving some weight to the older child's views for a "home base" the court emphasized the children's need for a strong relationship with both parents.

A temporary parenting schedule was ordered, significantly expanding the father's parenting time, including alternating weekends with Monday drop-off and weeknight visits.

The mother was ordered to pay costs to the father due to her unreasonable conduct.

The respondent corporation, through its self-represented principal, brought a motion seeking the recusal of the judge for bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias, or alternatively, an adjournment of the reference ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The motion was based on the judge's conduct during the trial of an issue, including an inquiry into whether the principal had complied with a production order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of bias and that the production order and subsequent inquiries were justified.

The court then proceeded with the reference, finding that the respondent owed the applicant $354,197.58 from the proceeds of the sale of her property.

The successful plaintiff, Mettko Construction Ltd., sought substantial indemnity costs after being awarded damages at trial.

The defendant, Hauser Realty Corp., argued for partial indemnity, asserting that Mettko's Rule 49 offer to settle was implicitly withdrawn by subsequent settlement negotiations and that the quantum sought was unreasonable.

The court found that Mettko's Rule 49 offer was indeed withdrawn by implication due to later offers.

While acknowledging Mettko's success and the importance of the issues, the court also considered factors such as the evolving nature of Mettko's case theory and multiple changes in counsel, which contributed to increased costs.

The court ultimately awarded Mettko $225,000 in all-inclusive costs, deeming it a reasonable and proportionate amount for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than the $456,609.81 sought.

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 applicant brought a motion for financial disclosure, which was required by a jointly retained business valuator for a business valuation.

The respondent had failed to provide the requested disclosure for 16 months, offering unconvincing excuses such as lost documents or availability at the matrimonial home.

The court found the disclosure relevant, proportionate, and necessary, emphasizing that full financial disclosure is the "lynchpin" of family litigation.

The respondent's last-minute cross-motion was declined.

The applicant's motion was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay full indemnity costs due to the unnecessary delay and expense caused by the non-disclosure.

The plaintiffs brought a summary judgment motion seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a cottage.

The defendants argued the APS was invalid due to alleged irregularities in signing, unauthorized amendments to an OREA form, and late deposit payment, and further claimed the agreement was unconscionable.

The court found the APS valid, the deal not unconscionable, and the property unique, granting specific performance to the plaintiffs.

The Applicant sought full recovery costs of $297,615.08 following a successful trial where the Respondents were found to have acted in bad faith and lied under oath.

The court found that full recovery costs were warranted under Rule 24(8) of the Family Law Rules due to the Respondents' bad faith conduct, and alternatively under Rule 18(14) due to the Applicant's favourable offers to settle.

However, the court reduced the quantum of costs to $150,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the requested amount disproportionate to the financial outcome and considering the Applicant's partial success on some issues.

Both Respondents were held jointly and severally liable for the costs.