Fowler Byrne

The respondent, Hassan Jarrar, was found guilty of multiple sexual and child pornography offences.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court found a pattern of repetitive violent and sexual behaviour targeting young vulnerable females, demonstrating a failure to restrain behaviour and a likelihood of causing death, injury, or severe psychological damage.

Despite the respondent's lack of cooperation with assessments and treatment, the court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence or a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

Consequently, the respondent was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms for the serious personal injury offences, along with other prohibitions and orders.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The employer argued the termination clause was valid because the employee, as a construction worker, was exempt from statutory notice under the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an employment contract cannot contract out of protected employment standards, even if those standards do not currently apply to the employee.

The termination clause was void because it potentially violated the ESA by denying benefits and severance pay if the employee's position or the employer's size changed.

The defendant employer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal grounds were that the Deputy Judge erred in finding the employment contract contracted out of ESA obligations for a construction employee not entitled to statutory notice, and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the termination clause void for potentially violating the ESA by contracting out of benefits and severance pay, even if those specific entitlements did not apply at the time of termination or if the employee's role changed.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment concerning the division of a business enterprise operating two medical schools.

The Applicants sought partial indemnity costs for legal proceedings in Ontario and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

The Respondents sought full indemnity costs against the Applicants and requested the judge's recusal due to alleged bias.

The court dismissed the recusal request, found no basis for costs against Applicants' counsel, and declined to award costs for St. Vincent and the Grenadines counsel due to lack of evidence.

The Applicants were largely successful in the main application, securing a monitor, injunctive relief, and an interim disbursement.

The court awarded the Applicants $85,000 in partial indemnity costs, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, payable within 30 days.

The applicant sought child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family properties following a 16-year marriage.

The respondent husband claimed he was disabled, unemployed, and had no assets, asserting that properties and funds were owned by his parents.

The court found the husband and his parents lacked credibility and had failed to provide adequate financial disclosure.

The court imputed an income of $70,000 to the husband based on his intentional under-employment and hidden wealth.

Applying the presumption of resulting trust, the court found the husband held beneficial interests in several commercial properties registered in his mother's name.

The court ordered the husband to pay lump sum child and spousal support due to his history of non-payment and hidden assets, and ordered an equalization payment of $286,884.54 to the applicant.

The Applicant Father sought an urgent motion to resume court-ordered access to his daughter, which the Respondent Mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 concerns, the child's health, and the Father's alleged alcohol abuse and association with a "drug house." The court found the Mother's unilateral suspension wrongful.

While acknowledging the Mother's concerns, particularly regarding the Father's social distancing and attendance at a questionable residence, the court ordered the immediate recommencement of access with modifications.

These modifications included shortened access time, specific exchange protocols, continued breath sample reporting by the Father, strict adherence to COVID-19 protocols, and a prohibition on attending the "Cliftonvale Residence" without sworn evidence of legitimate work.

The applicant, KB Group Inc., sought a declaration that four agreements of purchase and sale for commercial condominium units were terminated and that the individual respondent was personally liable for damages.

The respondents, Dr. Satinder Kaur Saroya Medicine Professional Corporation and Dr. Satinder Kaur Saroya, opposed the termination and personal liability.

The court found that the agreements did not grant the applicant a unilateral right to terminate and were not terminated by the doctrine of frustration.

The court converted the remaining issues of repudiation, promissory estoppel, and illegality of the agreements or a collateral agreement into an action for trial, citing the need for extensive factual findings and the risk of inconsistent findings if resolved by partial summary judgment.

The applicant Wife and respondent Husband, married in 1983 and separated in 2011, sought a beneficial interest in a 15-acre property owned by the Husband's late father (Joseph Sr.), who died intestate.

The Husband and Wife had built and continuously improved a house on the property, believing they would inherit it.

The court addressed claims of oral agreement, resulting trust, unjust enrichment, and proprietary estoppel against Joseph Sr.'s Estate.

The court found no oral agreement or resulting trust but established unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel regarding the house, but not the entire acreage.

The claims were not statute-barred.

The court awarded the Husband and Wife a joint beneficial ownership of 75% of the property via a constructive trust, with the Estate retaining 25%, and granted the divorce.

This is a costs endorsement following an 11-day family law trial.

The Applicant, M.M., sought full indemnity costs of $93,856.77 against the Respondent, E.M., who was self-represented and did not file submissions.

The court considered the parties' success on various issues, E.M.'s unreasonable behaviour, and her bad faith conduct throughout the litigation, including breaches of court orders, threats, and harassment.

While E.M. had partial success on spousal support, M.M. was largely successful on other issues and made several unaccepted offers to settle.

The court found clear examples of E.M.'s bad faith.

Considering all factors, including proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded M.M. costs fixed at $70,000.

The defendant, Ho Ting Char, was charged with conspiracy, unlawful production of methamphetamine, and unlawful production of ketamine.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial video surveillance evidence of the defendant's non-verbal conduct at various locations associated with clandestine drug laboratories.

The court found the evidence, while suspicious, did not unequivocally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was participating in drug production or was part of a conspiracy, as innocent explanations for his conduct could not be excluded.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, Richard Walker, brought a motion to qualify Mr. David Pellerin as an expert witness in computer forensics and viruses to support his defence against charges of possessing, accessing, and making available child pornography.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that Mr. Pellerin did not meet the threshold requirements for expert qualification, specifically lacking clear impartiality, independence, and unbiasedness due to a prior working relationship with the accused.

Furthermore, his proposed evidence was based on incomplete information and general knowledge, making its relevance and necessity tenuous.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the risk of unduly delaying the trial, confusing the jury, and leading to an unhelpful line of inquiry.

This costs endorsement addresses several pre-trial and mid-trial motions, as well as costs thrown away, following a mistrial declared due to the plaintiff's health crisis.

The court considered motions regarding venue transfer, exclusion of surveillance evidence, expert and non-party expert witnesses, and two motions for mistrial.

The court applied principles of costs following the event and the factors under Rule 57.01(1), and specifically addressed "costs thrown away" in the context of a mistrial not caused by fault but by the responsibility of a party due to an unforeseen health event.

The plaintiff was awarded costs for the surveillance and expert witness motions, while the defendant was awarded costs for their mistrial motion and substantial indemnity for costs thrown away.

The Appellant Father appealed an order granting the Respondent Mother exclusive right to consent to ADHD medication for their child and choose treatment providers.

The appeal raised numerous alleged errors of fact and law, including the motions judge's findings on the pediatrician's recommendations, the effectiveness of medication, the father's willingness to cooperate, the interpretation of a prior communication order, the consideration of the child's views, the application of the Health Care Consent Act, and the admissibility of medical evidence.

The appellate court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law, but clarified the wording of the original order to ensure the child's right to consent was preserved.

The Applicant sought an urgent order for the sale of a jointly owned property and an amendment to her application, citing dire financial circumstances due to mortgage arrears and lack of income.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the matter was not urgent, the application was procedurally improper given a prior divorce, and that it constituted a malicious collateral attack.

The court found the matter urgent, applying the Thomas v. Wohleber test, noting the immediate risk of losing equity.

It permitted the amendment and ordered the sale of the property, rejecting the Respondent's procedural objections and finding no malicious conduct.

The Applicant was granted sole authority for the sale above a specified price, with the Respondent given a limited opportunity to purchase the property first.

The applicant, widow and estate trustee of a deceased business partner, brought an application against the surviving partner regarding the division of their jointly owned medical schools in the Caribbean.

The applicant sought the appointment of a monitor, an injunction preventing the respondent from operating a competing medical school, and damages for oppression and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found it had jurisdiction as the respondent waived the arbitration clause by participating in the litigation.

The court appointed a monitor to oversee the complex financial separation, granted an interim injunction restricting the respondent's competing university from poaching staff and students, and converted the application into an action due to significant factual disputes.

On the eve of a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude late-served video surveillance reports or, alternatively, for an adjournment.

The court found that the recent surveillance was not substantially different from previously disclosed surveillance and did not unfairly surprise the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the evidence, granting the defendant leave to use the reports for substantive purposes subject to a mid-trial voir dire.

A short adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to review the new surveillance.

The Applicant Father and Respondent Mother were married for over fourteen years and had one child.

An eleven-day trial addressed custody, access, child support, spousal support, equalization, and a restraining order.

The Mother exhibited hostile and belligerent behavior, including criminal harassment, which negatively impacted the child.

The court granted sole custody to the Father, with severely restricted and professionally managed access for the Mother, contingent on her addressing mental health issues.

The court also determined child support, awarded the Mother a lump sum spousal support payment, and an equalization payment, while making various post-separation adjustments.

The respondent client sought an order declaring that her contingency fee agreement with the applicant law firm was improperly terminated and that she was not liable for fees or disbursements.

The court found that the law firm had good cause to terminate the retainer due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

Interpreting the Solicitors Act and its regulations, the court held that the law firm could proceed with the assessment of its disbursements immediately.

However, the assessment of legal fees was stayed as premature, because under the regulations, a solicitor cannot recover more in fees than the client recovers in damages, and the underlying tort action had not yet been resolved.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing her action for delay.

The action, claiming $12,000,000 in damages arising from a border crossing incident, was dismissed after a series of miscommunications and missed deadlines regarding a discovery plan.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing prejudice because the plaintiff had recently been diagnosed with dementia and could not be examined on her claims for emotional distress.

The court applied the four-part test for setting aside a dismissal order and found that the delay was adequately explained by inadvertence and missteps by multiple parties.

The court concluded that the prejudice to the plaintiff of losing her entire action outweighed the prejudice to the defendants regarding the examination, and set aside the dismissal order.

Following a motion to change where the father successfully obtained an earlier termination date for child support than the mother had agreed to, both parties sought costs.

The court found the father was the successful party, as he was forced to bring the motion and achieved a better result than the mother's position.

After considering the parties' offers to settle and the time spent, the court awarded the father costs of $3,000 on a partial indemnity basis, to be set off against any amounts he owed the mother.