F. Bruce Fitzpatrick

The accused, Dustin Moffatt, was charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault stemming from a stabbing incident.

The case primarily hinged on the identity of the assailant, referred to as the 'Man in Black' (MIB), based largely on circumstantial and video evidence.

The court meticulously analyzed video footage and witness testimony, particularly focusing on the accused's location at the time of the incident and the movements of another individual, the 'Red Hat Man'.

The judge found that video evidence indicated the accused was unconscious and lying on the ground during the stabbings, and that the MIB was likely the 'Red Hat Man' who later rode away on the accused's bike.

This raised reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the assailant.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The applicant, a teacher, sought judicial review of the Investigation Committee of the Ontario College of Teachers' decisions not to refer his complaints against three colleagues to the Discipline Committee.

The complaints related to a school play about bullying and violence that the applicant claimed triggered a traumatic response.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked standing to challenge the substantive reasonableness of the decisions, as complainants in professional discipline cases generally only have standing for procedural fairness issues.

The court further held that the process was procedurally fair and the committee's decisions were reasonable.

This estate matter concerned the determination of legal fees to be paid from the estate of Frank Frederick Moore to Gail Patricia Hannula, a respondent and Frank's sister/power of attorney.

The underlying estate dispute had been settled, with a prior court order stipulating that legal fees for both the applicant (Frances Moore) and the respondent (Gail Patricia Hannula) would be indemnified by the Estate, either by agreement or court order.

The motion addressed the quantum of fees for Gail, who sought $35,000.

The applicant argued for $10,000 to $14,000.

The court found Gail's requested fees excessive due to duplication of effort, costs incurred from non-compliance with a prior order, expenses related to a contempt motion, and inflated charges for executor work.

The court ordered the Estate to pay Gail Patricia Hannula $14,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, and directed the balance of trust funds to Frances Moore.

The court also provided commentary on efficient motion practice, including the appropriate use of compendia and time estimates for short motions.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The court found that the accused's change of counsel and his delay in re-electing or waiving his preliminary inquiry constituted defence delay.

Deducting this defence delay from the total delay brought the net delay below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with drug and weapons offences, brought an application for standing to challenge the execution of search warrants at two properties and warrantless searches of common areas and via covert camera surveillance.

The court applied the Edwards test and found the applicant had no reasonable expectation of territorial privacy in either the 'trap house' or the 'safehouse', as he was not a tenant, had minimal connection to the properties, and lacked control over the spaces.

The court also found no reasonable expectation of informational privacy regarding the camera surveillance of a public area.

The application for standing was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion seeking more time to obtain financing to buy out the applicant's interest in their jointly owned home, an order for an appraisal, and full access to the property to rent it out.

The court dismissed the motion as moot.

An appraisal had already been completed, a prior court order already governed the timeline for the buyout, and the respondent, as a titled owner, simply needed to provide the required notice under an existing restraining order to access the home.

This motion for directions concerned the release of garnished funds held by the City of Thunder Bay.

The Plaintiff/Creditor, Mirmil Products, had a judgment against the Defendant/Debtor, Man-Shield (NWO) Construction Inc. (Manshield).

Manshield challenged the garnishment, arguing the funds were owed to a different entity, MBuilds (NWO) Limited Partnership, or were subject to a statutory trust under the Construction Act.

The court found that the City owed the funds to Manshield, not MBuilds, and that the corporate name change did not alter the entity's identity or obligations.

The court also dismissed the trust argument, finding it irrelevant as all subtrades were paid.

The motion for directions was granted, ordering the garnished funds to be paid to Mirmil Products.

Johnathon McKay pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the prolonged and brutal beating death of Nazareth Kwandibens.

The court accepted a joint submission for an 8-year incarceration sentence, with credit for time served.

The decision considered the accused's Indigenous background and the principles of Gladue and Ipeelee, acknowledging systemic and background factors affecting his responsibility, alongside aggravating factors like the violence and victim impact, and mitigating factors like remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The applicant, a declared vexatious litigant, sought leave to continue a libel claim against the Thunder Bay Police Service Board and others.

The court dismissed the application, finding it an an abuse of process due to the applicant's non-compliance with previous court orders requiring leave to institute or continue proceedings and notice to the Attorney General.

Furthermore, the court found the libel claim lacked reasonable grounds, as the published reports were factual accounts of arrest and did not imply human trafficking or criminal organization involvement as alleged by the applicant.

The respondent, Frank Lopez, brought a motion to terminate a temporary spousal support order of $11,000 per month, arguing a significant change in his income due to the involuntary termination of his professional corporation's partnership with a national accounting firm.

The applicant, Sandra Lopez, opposed, asserting Frank was intentionally underemployed and seeking income imputation.

The court found that the applicant did not demonstrate a need for temporary spousal support and that the respondent was not intentionally underemployed, accepting his explanation that the partnership termination was involuntary.

The motion to terminate spousal support was granted, effective October 1, 2023, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the respondent.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of cash found on Mr. Breton's property, alleging it was proceeds of crime under sections 462.43 and 490(9) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, relying on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony regarding drug trafficking patterns and currency bundling.

The court found that the large sums of cash found buried in the garage, along with cocaine and digital scales, were proceeds of crime, dismissing alternative explanations like a repair business or lottery winnings.

However, cash found in the house vents was not forfeited due to reasonable doubt regarding its origin.

The respondent moved to adjourn a trial in a mobility case, which the applicant opposed.

The motion was based on the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) being unable to complete its report by a court-ordered deadline, which had effectively vacated the OCL's involvement.

The court denied the adjournment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural orders, the vacating of the OCL order due to non-compliance with the deadline, and the need for timely adjudication in the child's best interests given limited judicial resources.

The plaintiffs in a complex commercial defamation action brought a refusals motion seeking to compel the defendants to answer discovery questions relating to past campaigns and acts of civil disobedience.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a prior Divisional Court decision had already determined that the defendants' past campaigns were irrelevant to the action.

The court also found that the questions sought similar fact evidence and raised proportionality concerns.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision finding that the Residential Tenancies Act applied to a waterfront lot leased to the respondent tenant.

The lot contained a cottage subject to a 99-year lease.

The landlord argued the property was exempt under section 5(a) of the Act as seasonal or temporary accommodation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an annual rental of premises used seasonally does not fall within the section 5(a) exemption, which is intended for temporary accommodations for the travelling or vacationing public.

Two accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery respectively, following an altercation over a bicycle that resulted in the victim's death.

The court considered sentencing ranges, pre-sentence custody credits, and Gladue principles for both Indigenous offenders.

Sentences were imposed, with the court emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, particularly for the manslaughter conviction involving a vulnerable victim.

The plaintiff, LH North Ltd., brought a motion for assessment of damages against the defendant, Albert Building Industries Inc. O/A Betontec Precast Products, after the defendant withdrew its defence and was noted in default.

The dispute arose from a commercial contract for precast concrete products for a bridge rehabilitation project, where Betontec failed to provide CSA-approved materials as agreed, leading to breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

This caused significant delays and additional costs for LH North Ltd. The court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding damages for the increased cost of replacement materials, standby costs, demobilization/remobilization, and MTO delay penalties, along with prejudgment interest and costs.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal decision that allowed the respondent unitholder to park in designated accessible parking spaces and awarded him $1,500 in damages.

The appellant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the parking dispute was connected to broader harassment claims falling under the section 117 carveout of the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the parking issue was severable and within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

The court upheld the Tribunal's findings that the unitholder was entitled to use the accessible spaces, the condominium could not charge back its enforcement costs, and the damages award was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed without costs due to the respondent's vexatious conduct during the hearing.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that jurisdiction over the proposed appeal lies with the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court judge on February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Myers J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.