F. Bruce Fitzpatrick

The applicants sought an order to discharge a mortgage under section 12(3) of the Mortgages Act, as the mortgagee, Frontiers Foundation Inc. (FFI), could not be found and had not responded to inquiries.

The court found that the applicants made diligent efforts to locate FFI and ascertain the mortgage status, and that FFI's claim was statute-barred by the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court exercised its discretion to discharge the mortgage without requiring payment into court, balancing the equities in favour of the mortgagor's successors.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment and costs decision resulting from four consolidated actions related to a construction project.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence (trucking invoices and dump tickets) without requiring the truck drivers to testify, and by misapprehending evidence regarding soil quality and excavation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly admitted the documents under the principled approach to hearsay through viva voce testimony, especially since the appellants had not objected at trial and had taken an 'all or nothing' approach by alleging fraud.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the poor soil conditions and the necessity of trucking soil offsite.

The appeal regarding the apportionment of storage costs for a Ferrari given as compensation was also dismissed.

Stephan Parr brought a motion to exclude certain shoe print evidence from his upcoming jury trial for murder.

The evidence included a police photograph of a shoe impression ("Impression F5") found at the scene, a video/photo of wet shoe impressions allegedly made by Parr, and product evidence from Adidas regarding CF Lite Racer shoes.

The Crown sought to have the jury compare Impression F5 with a product drawing of the shoes to infer Parr's presence at the scene.

The court granted the defence application, excluding the evidence on the grounds that its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.

The evidence was based on hearsay, lacked a proper foundation (no actual shoes seized, reliance on a product schematic), and the impression itself had poor clarity and discrepancies.

The court found that a lay jury would be unable to make meaningful conclusions from the evidence, and its introduction would distract the jury and lead to impermissible reasoning.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Provincial Police concluding that the misconduct of two officers, one of whom struck and killed the applicant's spouse with a police vehicle, was 'not of a serious nature'.

The Divisional Court held that the OPP was required to provide written reasons justifying its conclusion, given the severity of the incident and the statutory framework.

The court found the OPP's decision unreasonable because it merely listed generic factors without explaining how they applied to the specific officers.

The decision was quashed and remitted for a fresh determination.

This case involved an action for damages by the plaintiffs (2551965 Ontario Ltd. and Cabin Country Realty Ltd.) for alleged breach of restrictive covenants and interference in contractual/economic relations, and a counterclaim by the defendant (Harold Warkentin) for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer had just cause to dismiss the defendant due to willful misconduct, including verbal threats, unprofessional internal notes, and a conflict of interest regarding a client transaction.

Consequently, the defendant's counterclaim for wrongful dismissal was dismissed.

The court also found the restrictive covenants in the share purchase agreement to be unenforceable against the defendant post-termination, as the geographic scope ("Northwestern Ontario") was overly broad and unnecessary to protect the plaintiffs' legitimate business interests.

As a result, the plaintiffs' claim for damages related to these covenants was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, Gregory Paul Hlady, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking $5 million in damages for trespass and alleged breaches of agreements related to land management.

The defendants, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and several Ministry of Natural Resources employees, argued that the claims were either satisfied or legally invalid due to public policy.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the physical damage from the trespass had been remediated, the plaintiff's claims regarding broader land management agreements were unrealistic and without legal standing, and any agreement purporting to fetter government discretion would be void.

The court also dismissed claims of harassment, intimidation, and other torts against individual defendants as unsubstantiated.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

Devarsh Patel appealed his sentence for sexual assault, arguing the sentencing judge (Hoshizaki J.) erred by misapprehending the immigration consequences of the sentence and by failing to adequately consider relevant mitigating factors.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge was fully aware of the immigration implications and properly balanced all sentencing principles, including denunciation and deterrence.

The court concluded that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and that no reviewable error in principle was committed.

In this high-conflict family law motion, both self-represented parents sought various orders regarding parenting time, travel with the children, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant father sought equal parenting time and immediate sale of the home, while the respondent mother sought the involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL).

The court found the parties' affidavits to be unhelpful and focused on individual needs rather than the children's best interests.

The court granted the OCL's involvement, ordered an extended summer parenting time for the father, formalized travel rules, and adjourned the motion for the sale of the matrimonial home pending the OCL's report.

The court also ordered both parents to cease disparaging each other and awarded the father $250 in costs for a previous delay caused by the mother.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal which upheld the denial of his application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had continuous impairments, they were not substantial and did not substantially restrict his activities of daily living.

The Divisional Court applied the correctness standard of review and found no error of law in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claims for a catastrophic impairment designation, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law in the LAT Vice-Chair's application of the 'but for' causation test or her factual findings that the appellant's ongoing impairments were not accident-related.

The court also held that the LAT correctly dismissed the claims for treatment plans and attendant care benefits, as the appellant had no accident-related impairments during the relevant periods.

The appeal was dismissed.

Mark Buckley, charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, applied under section 24(2) of the Charter to exclude all evidence.

He alleged violations of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b), specifically regarding delayed rights to counsel, failure to caution, questioning before counsel access, and unlawful search of his bag.

The court found a minor breach of the duty to hold off questioning in the police car but no other Charter breaches.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the breach was low, its impact on Buckley minimal, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits high.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and all evidence was deemed admissible.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring him to pay $193,596.50 to the respondent for her share of a joint bank account following their separation.

The appellant argued there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the quantum owed and that he was entitled to a trial under Rule 16(7) of the Family Law Rules.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in relying on the appellant's failure to respond to a Request to Admit, which deemed the quantum admitted.

The court held the motion judge properly applied the summary judgment framework and made no palpable and overriding error.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her discrimination application against a grocery store for requiring her to wear a mask.

The Tribunal had dismissed the application because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence substantiating a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's request for further medical evidence was reasonable and that the Tribunal did not breach procedural fairness, as the applicant was given multiple opportunities to provide the required information.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Z.M.L. for manslaughter under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found Z.M.L. guilty as a joint principal in a violent group assault that caused the death of William Wapoose.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year custody and supervision order, with a significant custodial component in an adult facility.

The defence argued for a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order (DCSO), asserting Z.M.L.'s involvement did not constitute serious bodily harm and that time on bail was sufficient.

The court rejected the DCSO, finding Z.M.L.'s actions caused serious bodily harm, and imposed a three-year custody and supervision order, consisting of eighteen months in an adult facility (with credit for time served) followed by eighteen months of conditional supervision.

The court emphasized accountability, rehabilitation, and denunciation, while acknowledging the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness for youth.

The moving parties (the "Browns") sought an injunction to prevent the responding parties (Labonte) from enforcing a notice of sale under mortgage.

The Browns had withheld mortgage payments, relying on a set-off clause in the purchase agreement.

The court applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions.

While a serious issue to be tried existed regarding the interpretation of the set-off clause, the Browns did not fully satisfy the irreparable harm or balance of convenience tests as requested.

The court found that the Browns would suffer irreparable harm if the property was sold, but the balance of convenience did not favour granting an outright injunction due to substantial mortgage arrears and the lack of quantification of the set-off claim.

The motion was adjourned, and an interim order was made prohibiting Labonte from enforcing the notice of sale on terms that required the Browns to make substantial payments towards the mortgage arrears.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from a trial management conference in a criminal proceeding.

Key points included a discussion regarding the appointment of counsel for one accused, Stephen Richard Parr, who has a Legal Aid certificate but is seeking counsel on the LAO panel.

The court also directed the Crown to file its discreditable conduct application and ordered all counsel to file summaries of their intended pre-trial applications by March 29, 2024.

The judge expressed concern about the efficiency of virtual attendances and indicated a consideration for ordering future trial management conferences to be held in person.

The plaintiff brought a motion for the interim preservation of a 1963 Pontiac Parisienne, alleging he purchased it from the defendant who subsequently resiled from the agreement.

The defendant sought an adjournment to challenge the court's jurisdiction, as the sale occurred in Illinois.

The court granted an interim interim preservation order, finding a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the unique vintage vehicle.

The order was made without prejudice to the defendant's right to bring a jurisdictional motion, and the plaintiff was required to pay the balance of the purchase price into court.

In this family law dispute, both parties brought motions concerning support arrears, property payments, and financial disclosure.

The primary contested issue was the amount of child and spousal support arrears, with the applicant seeking over $21,000 and the respondent proposing approximately $9,900.

The court fixed the arrears at the respondent's proposed amount of $9,927.32 as of December 31, 2023, finding the applicant's higher claim included disputed section 7 expenses and property taxes not covered by existing orders.

The court also made orders regarding mortgage payments, property taxes, and the production of income tax returns.

To manage the long-standing litigation, the court ordered that no further motions could be brought without leave and directed the parties to arrange a trial management conference to move the matter to trial.

This decision concerns a fresh bail application by Daniel Keefe, charged with second-degree murder, following an initial denial.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the passage of time.

The court assessed the bail plan against the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

The proposed sureties (Keefe's mother and aunt) were found to lack sufficient awareness of their undertaking's gravity, and their proposed plan was deemed unrealistic and inconsistent with information about Keefe's mental health.

The court found a substantial likelihood that Keefe could interfere with the administration of justice and that his release would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the serious charge and the strength of the Crown's case.

The application for bail was dismissed, and Keefe was ordered to remain in detention.

This endorsement follows a case conference in a protracted civil litigation.

The plaintiff, Gregory Paul Hlady, brought a four-volume motion record seeking various forms of relief, some of which the court deemed unavailable (e.g., ordering settlement discussions, default judgment where default was previously set aside).

The court issued procedural directions, including deadlines for the plaintiff to amend his motion to seek summary judgment, for both parties to exchange affidavits of documents, and for the defendants to serve their discovery plan.

A further case conference was scheduled to determine next steps in the litigation.