Fowler Byrne

The Superior Court of Justice provided reasons for two evidentiary rulings made during a criminal trial for aggravated assault and assault.

First, the court granted the Crown's application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow a witness, Jaskeerat Singh Mann, to testify by videoconference, finding it appropriate given his personal circumstances, cost implications, and the nature of his evidence, which primarily involved introducing videos.

Second, the court permitted Samneet Guraya to give identification evidence from trial videos, determining that a Leaney Application was not required as she had a pre-existing relationship with the accused, placing her in a better position than the jury to identify them.

The applicant, Dillon Parris, commenced an application seeking the reversion of title to his former home and $80 million in damages for alleged breaches of his Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He claimed fraud by the respondents, The Corporation of the City of Brampton and Mayor Patrick Brown, for failing to revert title and profiting from this alleged fraud.

The respondents sought dismissal of the application under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting a lack of connection between the respondents and the applicant's loss of property or subsequent issues.

The application was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The trial resolved issues of equalization, income determination, child and spousal support, and post-separation adjustments.

The court preferred the applicant's expert's asset-based valuation of the family businesses over the respondent's earnings-based approach.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to tax-free earnings from day trading losses.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $345,325.02 and significant retroactive child support.

The court also found the respondent engaged in serious misconduct by improperly accessing the applicant's privileged emails.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to set aside a previous order that dismissed most of her extensive claim against numerous defendants, alleging fraud or newly discovered facts.

She also sought to lift a stay of action, strike statements of defence, obtain summary judgment, and allow for intervention.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud related to the prior order and no newly discovered facts that would have altered the outcome.

The court emphasized the stringent test for setting aside orders, particularly those made under Rule 2.1, and deemed the other requested relief moot.

The Bayer and Johnson & Johnson Defendants brought motions under Rule 59.06 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to amend or vary a previous order dated October 4, 2023, which had declined to dismiss the plaintiff's extensive claims under Rule 2.1.

The defendants argued that the prior decision contained errors or oversights, specifically regarding the omission of a Federal Court Statement of Claim and the court's comments on limitation periods.

The court dismissed both motions, reiterating that Rule 59.06 is intended for clerical or accidental errors in memorializing a decision, not for re-evaluating the reasoning itself.

The court clarified that its previous comments on limitation periods were not a final determination and did not preclude the defendants from raising such a defence at a later stage.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's other discreditable conduct, specifically the discovery of a handgun and unique ammunition in his car, in a first-degree murder trial where identity was a key issue.

The court applied the framework for admissibility of similar fact evidence, assessing probative value against prejudicial effect.

The court ruled that the evidence of the unique combination of ammunition found in the accused's car was admissible due to its high probative value in establishing identity, outweighing its prejudicial effect.

However, the evidence of the firearm itself was deemed inadmissible due to low probative value and higher prejudicial risk, unless the accused denied association with the ammunition.

The Father brought a motion to change seeking to terminate his child support obligations for the parties' child, O.B., as of April 30, 2023, and to be reimbursed for overpayments.

The Mother opposed, arguing support should continue due to O.B.'s ongoing post-secondary studies.

The court interpreted the existing Chozik Order, which stipulated child support termination upon the child obtaining one post-secondary degree or diploma.

As O.B. completed her two-year college diploma in April 2023, the court found the termination clause enforceable.

The Mother's request for continued support was not properly before the court as she did not seek a variation in her response, and even if considered, insufficient evidence was provided to establish a material change in circumstances or the child's continued need for support.

The court determined the appropriate termination date for child support was August 31, 2023, allowing for a transition period.

The Father's motion to terminate child support was granted, and the Mother was ordered to repay any overpayments.

This decision addresses two applications concerning the estates of Anna Wojtaszynski and Bruno Wojtaszynski.

Daniela Lis, as Anna's Estate Trustee, sought a passing of accounts for two periods.

Mary Korol, a beneficiary and Bruno's Estate Trustee, objected to several disbursements and Daniela's compensation.

The court ordered the payment of a debt from Anna's Estate to Bruno's Estate.

It disallowed certain legal fees and an early distribution to one beneficiary (Liliane Brown) from Anna's Estate, citing the "even-hand rule." The court found that GICs received by Mary Korol were a gift, not an advance on inheritance, and the claim was time-barred.

Daniela's trustee compensation was reduced, not due to misconduct, but because some administrative work was performed by legal and accounting professionals.

The court noted that both parties contributed to the protracted litigation due to animosity and distrust, ordering them to bear their own costs for Bruno's Estate application.

This case involved two consolidated applications concerning the Estate of William R. Harper.

The primary dispute was over the beneficiary designation of a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) and a Life Income Fund (LIF) held with National Bank Financial Inc. (NBF).

Erin Forsyth claimed to be the beneficiary of both, based on a disputed beneficiary designation form.

Dona Jean Murphy, as Estate Trustee, argued the Estate was the beneficiary and challenged Forsyth's designation on grounds of undue influence and lack of capacity.

The court found the disputed form valid for the RRSP only, designating Forsyth as beneficiary, and dismissed claims of undue influence and lack of capacity.

The LIF was determined to be part of the Estate.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing his roommate.

The Crown sought 17 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the execution-style shooting of an unarmed victim in her home to be highly aggravating.

Despite the offender's challenging background and mental health issues, the court prioritized deterrence and denunciation, imposing a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 16 years.

The applicant, Daniel Thompson, brought a motion under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at 124 Cadillac Crescent, Brampton, alleging a s. 8 Charter infringement due to insufficient reasonable grounds for the warrant.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO), considering alleged omissions and misrepresentations by the affiant.

The court found that despite a minor omission regarding the applicant's post-buy travels, the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence, including MTO records, vehicle registration, and surveillance, to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The court relied on the affiant's detailed experience in drug investigations and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, as no Charter violation was found.

The applicant husband and respondent brother brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the respondent wife's property claims, including equalization and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the wife lacked standing to assert an unjust enrichment claim against the brother on behalf of the husband, dismissing that specific claim.

However, the court dismissed the remainder of the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the wife's equalization and personal unjust enrichment claims due to inconsistent evidence regarding the husband's corporate and property interests.

The University of Toronto appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding a student $710.27 in general damages and $1,000 in punitive damages over a disputed tuition refund.

The student had dropped a full-year course after the refund deadline but argued the policy was ambiguous.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact and law.

The court held the university's calendar and refund policy clearly stated the financial penalties for late withdrawal, and the university's conduct did not meet the high threshold for punitive damages.

The original claim was dismissed.

Egypt Morgan was sentenced for manslaughter after being jointly charged with first-degree murder.

The jury found her guilty of manslaughter, while her co-accused, Shamoi Palmer, was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The victim, Jermaine Titus, was an innocent bystander killed by a bullet intended for another individual.

Morgan's role involved alerting Palmer to the victim's location, knowing Palmer possessed a firearm and intended to discharge it recklessly.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, the planned nature of Morgan's actions, the innocent victim, and her post-offence assistance to Palmer.

Mitigating factors included her status as a youthful first offender, family support, participation in rehabilitation programs, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence sought time served.

The court imposed a 10-year sentence, with credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 3 years, 9 months, and 21 days to serve.

The defendant, 1190393 Ontario Limited o/a Phil’s Grandsons Place (PGP), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim arising from an altercation outside its premises.

The plaintiffs alleged PGP was liable for serving excessive alcohol to a co-defendant who assaulted one of the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed PGP's motion, finding that granting partial summary judgment would not be in the interests of justice due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as a crossclaim by the co-defendant against PGP on the same issues would still proceed to trial.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy city sidewalk, sustaining a severe proximal humerus fracture that required surgery and resulted in permanent limitations in her right shoulder.

The defendant municipality admitted liability, leaving only damages to be assessed.

The court awarded $125,000 in general damages, $64,723 for future care costs, and $2,724.26 for out-of-pocket expenses, plus a subrogated OHIP claim.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish a real and substantial risk of pecuniary loss.

This mid-trial ruling addresses the Respondent's violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn by adducing evidence on substantive issues (equalization payment, income for support, unreported cash sales, business valuation, and child residency) without having put these points to the Applicant or her bookkeeper during cross-examination.

The court found a serious and voluminous breach of trial fairness.

As a remedy, the court ordered that the Applicant and her bookkeeper be recalled to address the new evidence, rather than excluding the Respondent's evidence, to ensure all relevant evidence is heard and credibility can be fairly assessed.

The Respondent was ordered to pay the costs associated with recalling the witnesses.

The Plaintiff, Saugeen Economic Development Corporation, sought to enforce a second mortgage against the property of the Defendants, Karl and Karen Peuser.

The Defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to discharge the mortgage, arguing the Plaintiff had surrendered its security interest during their respective bankruptcy proceedings by filing an amended proof of claim as an unsecured creditor.

The court found no express or implied surrender of the security interest, noting that the Plaintiff's actions were consistent with the security having no value at the time of bankruptcy and did not prejudice other creditors.

Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the Defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The Applicant Mother sought temporary sole decision-making authority for the children's healthcare, vaccinations, education, and general well-being, and involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The Respondent Father sought a gradual expansion of parenting time to be equal, an order compelling the Mother to attend a "Pathways Through Conflict" program for alleged alienation, and an order for common rules and discipline.

The court granted the Mother temporary sole decision-making authority in all areas, particularly regarding vaccinations, citing the Father's nonsensical position on public health recommendations and lack of cooperation.

The court denied the Father's request for equal parenting time, maintaining the status quo with some adjustments to his parenting schedule, and dismissed his requests to compel the Mother to attend the program or agree to common rules, finding no evidence of alienation and emphasizing each parent's authority for day-to-day decisions during their parenting time.

The court also addressed evidentiary issues, ruling against the admissibility of hearsay and surreptitious audio recordings.

This trial addressed outstanding issues of retroactive and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses, including RESP contributions, following a partial settlement.

The court imputed income to both the Father (Applicant) and the Mother (Respondent) based on their earning capacities and health circumstances.

The Father was found to be intentionally underemployed, and the Mother's unemployment was attributed to health issues, though income was still imputed due to insufficient evidence of complete inability to work or efforts to obtain disability benefits.

The court calculated child support arrears for both parties, resulting in a net payment from the Father to the Mother.

The Father's claim for childcare expenses was dismissed for lack of evidence, while RESP contributions were ordered to be shared equally going forward, with the Father paying arrears to equalize past contributions.