George W. King

The two accused, commercial truck drivers, were charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after CBSA officers found 31 kilograms of cocaine in their trailer at the Ambassador Bridge.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge and control.

The court rejected the testimony of the accused Sidhu, finding his explanation for his fingerprint on a box containing cocaine to be illogical and implausible.

Sidhu was found guilty on both counts.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the co-accused Singh had knowledge of the cocaine, as there was no physical evidence linking him to the drugs and other reasonable inferences existed.

Singh was acquitted.

The accused, a denturist, was charged with 17 counts of sexual assault against multiple female patients.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally rubbed his penis against the buttocks of the patients while performing denturist services.

The court admitted the evidence of the complainants as similar fact evidence, finding it highly probative of the actus reus and credibility.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence and found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty on 13 counts of sexual assault.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a Hague Convention application.

The respondent (mother) sought over $215,000 in costs after successfully defending the application.

The court reviewed the principles of costs, including reasonableness and the parties' financial circumstances.

Despite the respondent's full success on the underlying application and a rejected settlement offer, the court significantly reduced the requested costs to $50,761.01.

The decision emphasizes that costs awards must be proportionate and subject to the reasonable expectations of the parties, especially given their modest financial circumstances, and that success is not divided when pre-requisite findings are made but the ultimate relief sought is denied.

The applicant father sought the immediate return of the child to Ohio, USA, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The respondent mother opposed, relying on Article 13(b) (grave risk of harm) and Article 13(2) (child's objection).

The court found that the child was habitually resident in Ohio and wrongfully removed.

However, the court determined that both Article 13(b) and Article 13(2) exceptions applied, citing the father's controlling and abusive behavior, the child's forced performance of demeaning chores, the presence of loaded weapons, and the child's strong, independent objection to returning.

The application for the child's return was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality for injuries sustained after tripping on beach stones scattered on a public sidewalk.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the sidewalk was not in an unreasonable state of non-repair and that it had no knowledge of the stones.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the presence of the stones did not constitute an unreasonable state of non-repair as they could be easily avoided by a person exercising ordinary care.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality was exempt from liability under s. 44(3)(a) of the Municipal Act because it did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, about the stones on the sidewalk.

The applicant, a community development corporation, brought an application for a declaration that it is a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and therefore exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)(9) of the Assessment Act.

The court applied principles of statutory interpretation, including ejusdem generis, and found that the applicant did not meet the definition of a local board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim sole custody and to restrict the respondent father's access to supervised visits, citing his public anti-masking behaviour and denial of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased, unsupervised access.

The court found that the respondent's intentional flaunting of public health guidelines and boastful anti-masking behaviour put the children at risk.

Applying the Ribeiro framework, the court granted the applicant interim sole custody and ordered that the respondent's access be supervised to ensure compliance with COVID-19 precautions.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's $30,326.95 claim for construction materials on summary judgment, the successful defendants sought costs of over $47,000.

The plaintiff had also incurred costs exceeding the claim amount.

The court criticized the disproportionate legal fees expended by both parties for a modest liquidated claim.

Applying the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, the court awarded the defendants fixed costs of $21,766.56.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following convictions for aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and extortion.

The offences involved the offender confining and repeatedly cutting a victim over a drug debt.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal history, which included numerous violent offences and a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder.

The court found the criteria for a dangerous offender designation were met under s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court concluded that the risk could be managed in the community after a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 12.5 years, leaving 4 years and 164 days to serve after pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from the flooding of their greenhouse, alleging the defendants negligently altered their adjacent property and caused the flood.

The parties had previously entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding the dispute, which the defendants subsequently breached by failing to construct a berm.

The court held that the plaintiffs could not rescind the settlement to resurrect their tort claim, as they had contracted it away.

Furthermore, the court found the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendants caused the flooding.

However, the court granted a declaration that the defendants breached the Minutes of Settlement, entitling the plaintiffs to damages for that breach.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a settlement of a commercial lease dispute, which included an injunction and a dispute over additional rent.

The court awarded costs to Calibur Tool and Mold Inc. on a partial indemnity basis for the injunction application, finding it was a necessary step due to the respondents' improper actions in blocking access to the leased premises.

No costs were awarded to either party for the additional rent dispute, as the settlement reflected a mixed success and it was not possible to determine who fared better.

The Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (WECAS) applied to extend a stay of an order from the Child and Family Services Review Board, which had directed the return of a child (S.G.) to foster parents J.T. and C.T., pending WECAS's appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court, sitting as a single judge of the Divisional Court, applied the three-stage test for a stay or interlocutory injunction.

The court found it questionable that WECAS would succeed on appeal, given the reasonableness standard of review for the Board's decision.

Furthermore, the court determined that J.T., C.T., and the child would suffer greater irreparable harm if the stay were granted.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed, and WECAS was ordered to return the child to J.T. and C.T. by March 19, 2020.

The plaintiff subcontractor, Tremblar Building Supplies Ltd., brought an action against the owner defendants (The Lighting Boutique Defendants) for breach of trust under the Construction Act and unjust enrichment, seeking payment for materials supplied to a general contractor (Keystone) that subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The owner defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that no statutory trust existed between the owner and the subcontractor due to a lack of privity of contract, as established by prior Divisional Court rulings.

Furthermore, the court determined that the existing contractual arrangements and the comprehensive scheme of the Construction Act constituted juristic reasons, thereby precluding any claim for unjust enrichment.

The offender, Mitchell O’Hanley, was convicted of dangerous driving and arson.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of prior record, employment, and efforts towards rehabilitation, against aggravating factors including the seriousness of arson, complete destruction of property, risk to neighbours and firefighters, and the dangerous driving incident.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for arson, imposing a 15-month imprisonment for arson and a $1,750 fine with a 30-day license suspension for dangerous driving, followed by 24 months probation.

Following a tragic incident where the defendant intentionally drove her vehicle into a river, killing two children, civil actions were commenced.

The defendant's insurer, Aviva, denied liability coverage but was required to pay the statutory minimum.

The plaintiff's underinsurer, State Farm, settled the plaintiff's claim and brought a motion seeking an order that Aviva pay 50% of the costs of that settlement.

The court granted the motion, finding that because Aviva remained an active participant in the litigation to maximize its credit on a separate underinsurance claim, it should share the costs burden equally with State Farm.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences.

The police conducted warrantless searches of the accused's rental property based on the consent of the landlord (the accused's mother).

The court found that the landlord did not have the authority to consent to the search of the tenant's residence, resulting in a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the firearm, marijuana, and a portion of the cocaine from evidence, finding that their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police conduct.

The accused, Brandon Nunn, charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking, brought an application to exclude evidence (fentanyl tablets) under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police unlawfully detained the accused, conducted an unreasonable search, and profoundly violated his right to counsel by forcing him to choose between medical treatment for pepper spray exposure and his constitutional rights, and by questioning him after he requested a lawyer.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court determined that the egregious state conduct and significant impact on the accused's liberty, privacy, and dignity interests outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

Consequently, the fentanyl evidence was excluded.

The applicant father and respondent mother lived in California but jointly decided to relocate to Ontario, purchasing a home and shipping their belongings.

During the move, the mother travelled to Connecticut with their child and decided to separate.

The father continued to Ontario and later brought the child to Ontario for a visit, subsequently commencing a custody application.

The mother challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction under s. 22(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found that despite the child not being habitually resident in Ontario, the court had jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) because the parties had a shared settled intention to move to Ontario, establishing a real and substantial connection, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the 83-year-old plaintiff to attend an examination for discovery with the defendant present.

The plaintiff, who alleged the defendant (her son) misappropriated her funds and breached his fiduciary duty, argued she would be intimidated by his presence.

The court found that the plaintiff established cause for the defendant's exclusion, noting the likelihood of intimidation and disruption, and the lack of prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was dismissed, and the discovery was ordered to proceed without the defendant present.

The plaintiff, acting under an assignment from a trustee in bankruptcy, brought a partial summary judgment motion against the defendants for amounts allegedly owing on a shareholder loan account to the bankrupt company.

The defendants argued the loan was offset by payments made to creditors and unpaid wages.

The court rejected most of the defendants' evidence as lacking documentary support and found that payments made after bankruptcy could not be credited.

The court granted partial summary judgment for $161,724.75, finding no genuine issue for trial on that amount, while leaving the remaining $57,590.25 for trial.