Fowler Byrne

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order to amend its declaration and description to remove the requirement that each residential unit be allocated one common element parking space, as the as-built parking garage could not accommodate enough spaces.

A unit owner opposed and brought an oppression application.

The court granted the amendments and dismissed the oppression claim, finding the respondent knew of the parking deficiency prior to purchasing its units.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, as well as his sentence of 12 months in custody and 2 years of probation.

He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to cross-examine the complainant on inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court admitted fresh evidence to evaluate the claim but found no miscarriage of justice, as the alleged inconsistencies were peripheral and did not affect the trial judge's credibility assessment on material facts.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the sentence proportionate and within the established range for offences involving a breach of trust by a driver.

The plaintiff advanced substantial sums of money to the defendants and to third parties on their behalf, and claimed either a proprietary interest in two real properties purchased by one defendant, or repayment of the loans.

The court, after a summary trial on affidavit evidence with cross-examination, found that all transfers were loans and that no constructive or resulting trust arose in favour of the plaintiff, as the advances constituted a juristic reason precluding unjust enrichment, and the plaintiff's own conduct — demanding repayment rather than asserting ownership — negated any intention to hold a beneficial interest.

The court further rejected the counterclaim for want of documentary evidence.

Judgment was granted against each defendant separately for the sums advanced to them individually, as the debts were not established to be joint.

A non-party former solicitor brought a motion for payment of his legal fees pursuant to a contingency fee agreement (CFA) signed by his client in December 2020, or alternatively on the basis of docketed hours.

The court found the CFA void for failing to comply with numerous mandatory requirements under Ontario Regulation 195/04 under the Solicitors Act, and held that ss. 23–24 of the Solicitors Act did not permit the court to validate a non-compliant CFA.

The court awarded fees only for work performed prior to a capacity assessment completed March 16, 2021, after which the solicitor had knowledge of the client's incapacity to manage property; post-assessment docketed fees were allowed only at a 15% discount.

No disbursements were allowed as no supporting evidence was provided.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for temporary child and spousal support.

The applicant father, a self-employed real estate agent, failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed the father's income at $228,432 based on his 2023 tax return and current earnings trajectory.

The mother's income was set at $65,000.

The court ordered the father to pay $3,092 per month in child support and $2,588 per month in spousal support, along with 67% of section 7 expenses.

The father was also ordered to maintain a $500,000 life insurance policy as security for his support obligations.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the defendant on a personal guarantee for chargebacks totalling $234,171.89 plus fees.

The defendant, a director and owner of a furniture retail business, had signed both a card acceptance agreement with the plaintiff for payment processing services and a personal guarantee of the business's obligations.

After the business ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy, the plaintiff sought to enforce the guarantee.

The defendant argued that summary judgment was inappropriate, that the contract was unconscionable, that proper demand was not made, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff, finding no genuine issues requiring trial and rejecting all of the defendant's defences.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment and default judgment against multiple defendants in connection with a $2,000,000 investment made into a company controlled by the defendants.

The plaintiff alleged the investment was misappropriated and used for personal expenses and to pay other investors in what amounted to a Ponzi scheme.

The court granted summary judgment against the primary defendants for the full amount, finding fraudulent misrepresentation and piercing the corporate veil.

Default judgment was granted against the remaining defendants who failed to file a statement of defence, and punitive damages were awarded.

The applicants sought the winding up of two Ontario corporations (NewCo), which were equally owned by three holding companies engaged in real estate development.

The corporations were governed by a shareholder agreement requiring unanimous consent for fundamental changes and providing for dispute resolution through a Casting Voter.

The parties became deadlocked over multiple issues including the appointment of corporate counsel, the appointment of a Casting Voter, and various property development decisions.

The court found that the parties' rights, expectations, and obligations to work cooperatively had not been fulfilled, that the dispute resolution process was inoperable, and that the relationship had broken down irreparably.

The court ordered the winding up of the corporations, appointed a Sales Officer and corporate counsel, and awarded costs to the applicants.

A residential condominium developer sought a declaration that communications from the Chief Building Official regarding parking requirements constituted appealable orders or decisions under the Building Code Act.

The developer argued that emails threatening permit revocation if occupancy permits were requested without adequate parking prevented it from applying for occupancy.

The court found that the emails were pre-emptive communications indicating the CBO's future intentions, not final decisions on actual occupancy permit applications.

As no formal decision refusing occupancy had been made, the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

However, the court maintained a temporary parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per unit pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on the developer's parking variance appeal.

The accused, C.D., was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code, alleged to have occurred over a 12-year period during a common law relationship.

The complainant described a pattern of emotionally manipulative and non-consensual sexual activity, but was only able to provide specific details of three incidents at trial.

The court found that, while the accused's behaviour was manipulative and at times abhorrent, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity in the three described instances, nor that the accused knew of any lack of consent.

C.D. was acquitted.

The applicant, West York Sales and Leasing Inc., sought a declaration that it was entitled to a defence under an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the respondent, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Travelers Canada).

The dispute centered on whether a specific vehicle was covered by the policy at the time of an accident, given the operation of a monthly reporting fleet endorsement.

The court found that the vehicle was covered, that late reporting did not invalidate coverage, and that any breach of statutory conditions was subject to relief from forfeiture.

The application was granted.

The court sentenced Shadrack Oppong-Kyereme for importing 12.2 kilograms of heroin into Canada, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The sentencing reasons review the circumstances of the offence and the offender, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The court considered the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender’s moral responsibility, but found only a modest reduction in culpability.

After reviewing comparable case law, the court imposed a sentence of 15 years, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of two counts of sexual assault against his then-wife, involving forced vaginal penetration.

The Crown sought a 4-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and breach of trust, alongside the offender's lack of insight and the collateral immigration consequences of his sentence.

The offender was sentenced to 3.5 years in custody for each count, to be served concurrently, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The appellant, Loveneet Kaur, appealed her conviction for impaired operation and operation with blood-alcohol concentration over 80, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s findings, including the rejection of the appellant’s evidence and the application of the statutory and common law tests for care and control.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no error in the trial judge’s analysis or application of the law.

The court sentenced David Morias for offences including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The decision reviews the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic anti-Black racism, and the appropriate sentencing range for mid-level fentanyl traffickers.

The court imposed a global sentence of 90 ⅔ months after credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The court found Chi Do guilty of three counts of unauthorized transfer of a firearm, twelve counts of possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking, and one count of public mischief.

The case turned on the implausibility and inconsistencies in Ms. Do’s account of thefts, her financial circumstances, and the circumstantial evidence that firearms registered to her were found at a crime scene before she reported them stolen.

The court rejected her evidence and concluded that she intentionally transferred the firearms and fabricated the theft to mislead police.

The court considered a motion by the father for equal parenting time or, alternatively, a step-up schedule leading to equal time by September 2025.

The parties have two children, ages 13 and nearly 15, who have lived primarily with the mother since separation.

The court reviewed the best interests of the children under the Divorce Act, including the children’s views and preferences, the history of care, and the need for stability.

The court found that the children’s current schedule meets their needs and that a forced change would not be in their best interests.

The court ordered that the children continue to reside primarily with the mother, with parenting time for the father to be increased in accordance with the recommendations of a reintegration therapist, and adjourned the motion for review after several months.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a cargo-damage claim arising from an international shipment of a container holding vehicles and personal items.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the material facts were largely undisputed and the dispositive question was the applicable limitation period.

Applying the contractual terms, the bill of lading, and the Marine Liability Act incorporating the Hague-Visby Rules, the court concluded that a one-year limitation period governed the action rather than the provincial two-year limitation period.

The action, commenced more than one year after delivery or the date the goods should have been delivered, was therefore statute-barred.

Summary judgment dismissing the claim was granted, and the carrier's abandoned counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicants, Dennis Singh and Justin Sandassie, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years for first degree murder under section 745(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the facts of the offence, the parties' positions, and the binding Supreme Court of Canada precedents.

The application was dismissed, with the court holding that the mandatory minimum sentence remains constitutionally valid and is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad under the Charter.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following a jury trial in a fatal motor vehicle accident case.

The court reviews the application of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, the reasonableness of the costs claimed, the effect of contingency fee agreements, and the impact of offers to settle.

Substantial indemnity costs are awarded throughout, reduced by 5% for contributory negligence, resulting in a total award of $490,368.86 to the plaintiffs.