Faieta

The parties brought cross-motions seeking to impose specific terms for the sale of their matrimonial home, following several prior orders that had failed to result in a sale.

The applicant sought to restrict the respondent, who intended to bid on the property, from seeing other offers.

The respondent argued that real estate regulations required offers to be conveyed promptly.

The court held that the obligation to convey offers is subject to client direction and ordered a blind bid process where neither party would see the offers until a specified time, preventing the respondent from gaining an unfair right of first refusal.

The court imposed detailed terms regarding the listing agreement, showing times, and COVID-19 protocols to ensure the sale proceeded without further dispute.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking to change the children's school from Sloane Public School to Birch Cliff Heights Public School due to concerns about COVID-19, as Sloane was located in a high-risk neighbourhood.

The parties had joint custody and had previously agreed the children would attend Sloane.

The court declined to take judicial notice of several specific medical and statistical assertions regarding COVID-19 and dismissed the applicant's motion to introduce fresh evidence.

Applying the best interests of the child test for changing schools and educational plans during a pandemic, the court found the applicant failed to provide compelling and cogent evidence that a change of schools was warranted.

The motion was dismissed, and the children were ordered to continue attending Sloane.

MacDonald & Partners LLP brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record for the applicant and respondent in consolidated civil and family law proceedings.

The clients opposed the motion and sought an adjournment.

The court found a fundamental breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, including an inability to obtain adequate instructions and a breakdown in communications.

Applying the principles from Cunningham v. Lilles, the court granted the motion to remove counsel, finding it would not cause serious harm to the administration of justice, and dismissed the clients' cross-motion for an adjournment.

The applicant mother brought an ex parte motion for an interim sole custody order (a 'chasing order') and an order for the return of her two children, who were allegedly wrongfully retained by the respondent father in Tunisia.

The court granted the mother interim sole custody and ordered the father to surrender the children's passports upon their return to Canada.

However, the court declined to order the children's return under the Hague Convention, noting that such an application must be brought in the jurisdiction where the children are located (Tunisia).

The court also dismissed requests to stay the Tunisian proceedings, sever the divorce, and permit substituted service via email.

The applicant pharmacy entered into an agreement to lease commercial space in the respondent's condominium building.

The agreement permitted the use of the premises as a pharmacy and family medical clinic.

Upon discovering the applicant intended to dispense methadone, the respondent attempted to impose a standard form lease containing onerous conditions not contemplated in the original agreement, and refused to grant possession unless signed.

The court held the agreement to lease was binding and enforceable, and the respondent breached the agreement by refusing possession.

A trial was directed to determine the applicant's damages.

The offender was convicted of four counts of trafficking crack cocaine and four counts of possession of property obtained by crime after selling to an undercover officer.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought one year.

The court weighed the offender's prior related record and profit motive against mitigating factors including stringent bail conditions and an arbitrary arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months incarceration, followed by three years of probation, with 189 days of pre-sentence credit.

The defendant was arrested for aggravated assault and detained by police.

Despite having sufficient evidence to charge him by 9:45 a.m., the police failed to bring him before a bail court before it closed at 12:43 p.m., instead interviewing him at 1:01 p.m. where he confessed.

The defendant brought an application to exclude the confession, arguing his detention violated s. 503(1) of the Criminal Code and s. 9 of the Charter.

The court found a serious, systemic breach of the defendant's Charter rights and excluded the confession under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, applied for the committal of the respondent for extradition to face a murder charge in Tennessee.

The respondent argued that his telephone confession to a US detective while he was in Canada constituted 'evidence gathered in Canada' under s. 32(2) of the Extradition Act, and should be excluded under the Charter.

The court held that evidence obtained by a foreign police officer via telephone from a person in Canada is gathered in the foreign jurisdiction, not in Canada.

The committal order was granted.