George Socrates Florentis

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against her brother, his wife, and their two corporations for the repayment of a loan funded through her personal line of credit.

The defendants argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding the terms of the loan and whether the personal defendants were liable.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the documentary evidence established the loan was for the benefit of all defendants, had a one-year term, and was acknowledged by the defendants.

Summary judgment was granted against all defendants in the amount of $155,322.82.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) appealed a motion judge's decision denying summary judgment for Crown wardship of a child, A.G. The child was apprehended after parents C.G. and D.S. left her at the hospital with a friend, G., under a private custody agreement, having concealed the pregnancy from the CAS.

The appeal court found the motion judge erred in deeming G.'s party status and the custody agreement's validity as triable issues.

The court declared the private custody agreement a nullity, as it was designed to circumvent the CAS's statutory duty to protect children.

Consequently, the child was found to be in need of protection due to the parents' unavailability and failure to make adequate provision for her care.

The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for an expedited trial on disposition, but the request for immediate Crown wardship without access was denied.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection under subsections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order making the child a Crown ward without access.

The respondent mother opposed the motion with a brief affidavit containing blanket denials unsupported by specific facts.

The respondent father provided no response.

The court found the Society had discharged its burden at both the finding and disposition stages, establishing compelling evidence of the parents' inability to adequately care for the child, the mother's untreated mental health issues, and the father's complete lack of engagement.

The court made an order declaring the child a Crown ward with no access for purposes of adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a newborn child (A.G.) was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and requesting an order for crown wardship with no access.

The respondent parents had executed a written custody agreement transferring sole custody of the child to a third party (A.G.1) on the day of the child's birth.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring trial on multiple grounds: (1) the identity of the person having charge of the child at the time of apprehension; (2) the validity and legal effect of the custody agreement; (3) whether A.G.1 qualifies as a statutory party to the proceeding; (4) whether the grounds for finding the child in need of protection (abandonment and risk of physical harm) were established; and (5) procedural and temporal issues arising from delays in the proceedings.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a three‑year‑old child occurring during overnight visits at a residence where the accused lived.

The child provided spontaneous disclosures to her mother and later gave a video‑recorded statement admitted under s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge assessed credibility under the principles in R. v. W.(D.) and related jurisprudence, finding the child’s evidence cogent, detailed, and consistent despite minor inconsistencies on collateral matters.

Similar act evidence from another conviction involving comparable conduct toward a young child was admitted to demonstrate situational propensity and reduce the likelihood of coincidence.

The court rejected the accused’s denial and found the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order for Crown wardship without access to a child in need of protection.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and requested that the matter proceed to trial.

The court found that the parents had unresolved issues including substance abuse, domestic violence, and parenting inadequacy.

The child had been in care for over 400 days and was thriving with foster parents.

The court granted the motion for Crown wardship without access, finding that no genuine or material issues remained to be resolved at trial and that the child's best interests required immediate placement for adoption with the foster parents.

In a criminal prosecution involving allegations of sexual assault against a child, the Crown sought to admit similar act evidence from a prior trial in which the accused had recently been convicted of comparable sexual offences involving another young complainant.

The defence argued the application should not proceed until appellate rights relating to the earlier conviction were exhausted and challenged the evidentiary basis for the application.

The court rejected the preliminary objection and held that the prior conviction and the trial judge’s reasons were admissible evidence on the similar fact voir dire.

Applying the governing principles from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court concluded that the similarities between the alleged acts—including the age of the complainants, the nature of the sexual acts, and the familial relationship—were highly probative and significantly outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The similar act evidence was therefore admitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a child who was between four and six years old at the time of the alleged incidents.

The complainant described three incidents involving fellatio and digital penetration occurring at a park, a bedroom, and a bathroom while the accused lived with her mother.

The accused denied the allegations and suggested a third-party suspect, but the court rejected that theory after reviewing the evidence.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D), the court found the accused’s evidence inconsistent and implausible and accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible and reliable.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for constructive possession of a weapon and marijuana.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's inference of constructive possession.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the sentence, holding that the trial judge erred in concluding he could not reduce a mandatory minimum sentence to account for pre-trial custody.

The sentence was reduced to time served.