Graeme Mew

The plaintiffs, owners of a water-access-only island property, sought a declaration that they held an easement over the defendant's mainland property for parking and boat launching.

The defendant, who operated a lodge on the mainland property, resisted the claim.

The Superior Court of Justice found that a valid express easement was created by a 1952 deed.

In the alternative, the court found that an implied easement of necessity and a prescriptive easement under the doctrine of lost modern grant had also been established.

The court held that the Registry Act did not extinguish the easement, as it arose by operation of law and the defendant's predecessors were not good-faith purchasers without notice.

The court granted the plaintiffs ancillary rights to park and launch boats, but declined to grant dock access.

The defendant pleaded guilty to occupying a motor vehicle with a loaded handgun, possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a weapons prohibition.

The court considered the defendant's significant criminal record, including a prior manslaughter conviction, alongside mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and systemic disadvantage stemming from his childhood in a war-torn country.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

Following success at trial in a trust and reconveyance dispute over eleven parcels of real property, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle.

The court held that the Simplified Procedure cost cap did not apply because the action predated 1 January 2020 and the value of the claim far exceeded the monetary threshold.

Although the plaintiff's 25 October 2022 offer satisfied Rule 49 and the trial result was more favourable than the offer, the court declined to impose enhanced costs because the underlying arrangement was intended to shield property from creditors and both sides had participated in the improper scheme.

The plaintiff was awarded costs only on a partial indemnity basis throughout.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action on behalf of over 350,000 Ontario residents whose personal health information was allegedly accessed without authorization from the COVaxON system by an employee of the defendant.

The parties consented to certification for settlement purposes and a $600,000 all-inclusive settlement fund.

Due to the infeasibility of individual distributions, the net settlement funds were to be distributed cy-près to MediaSmarts, a digital literacy charity.

The court certified the class action for settlement purposes, approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, and approved class counsel's fees of 25% of the gross recovery.

The Indigenous offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of his nine-year-old step-niece, who lived in his care.

The offences involved grooming, manipulation, and digital penetration, causing profound and ongoing psychological harm to the child.

The court weighed the severe aggravating factors against significant Gladue factors, including intergenerational trauma, FASD, and a history of abuse, as well as the offender's lack of a criminal record and guilty plea.

The court imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment in addition to time served, followed by two years' probation, along with mandatory ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition with an exception for sustenance hunting.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal, which found it lacked jurisdiction to hear their appeal regarding the cancellation of their income support.

The Director had cancelled their benefits and denied an extension of time to request an internal review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's decision to hold an in-writing hearing and concluding that the Tribunal correctly applied binding precedent in determining it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a denial of an extension of time for an internal review.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order requiring the production of the deceased's counselling records from 2005 to 2009 in a will challenge alleging undue influence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by applying a low threshold that permitted a fishing expedition for sensitive personal information.

The court also found a palpable and overriding error in relying on the absence of evidence of undue influence in the two years prior to the will's execution to justify broader disclosure.

The order for production was set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion to restrain a harassment investigation, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs totalling over $38,000, while the plaintiffs argued for a reduction based on proportionality and reasonableness.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 for Queen's University and Cunningham, and $10,000 for Anand, balancing the plaintiffs' chaotic conduct of the motion with principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations.

Following the release of reasons for decision on three motions in a bankruptcy proceeding, the parties could not agree on the terms of the resulting orders.

The applicant argued the orders should be dated when signed and that he was not properly served with the Receiver's motion via an email link.

The court held that the orders are effective from the date the reasons were released, as no substantial matters remained to be determined.

The court also found that service via an email link is valid and routine.

The applicant's subsequent motion for reconsideration was dismissed as an abuse of process, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting an incapacitated victim who was his friend and tenant.

The assault resulted in an unwanted pregnancy which the victim subsequently terminated.

The court denied a request to anonymize the trial decision, as the victim did not support it.

Weighing the significant harm to the victim and the breach of trust against the offender's lack of a criminal record and positive background, the court imposed a sentence of 42 months' imprisonment along with ancillary orders.

The plaintiff transferred eleven lots to the defendants to shield them from his creditors, providing $80,000 in cash to cover the purchase price and carrying costs.

The defendants later denied the existence of a trust and claimed absolute ownership.

The court found that an express trust was established, corroborated by the plaintiff's solicitor's contemporaneous notes and email correspondence.

The court rejected the defendants' reliance on the Statute of Frauds and the Land Titles Act.

Despite the plaintiff's fraudulent intent to defeat creditors, the court exercised its equitable discretion to enforce the trust, noting the defendants' knowing participation and that returning the properties would benefit the plaintiff's creditors.

The defendants defaulted on a mortgage provided by the plaintiffs.

After obtaining default judgment and a writ of possession, the plaintiffs sought to enforce the eviction.

On the eve of enforcement, the self-represented defendants brought an urgent motion to stay the writ of possession, arguing they needed time to sell the property themselves to maximize their recovery.

The court adjourned the motion for two weeks and granted a temporary stay, ordering the defendants to provide evidence of an actual listing agreement and sales activity to justify any further extension.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs for the motion.

The plaintiffs, a university student and a community member, brought an urgent motion seeking to stay or enjoin an ongoing harassment investigation by Queen's University and its independent investigator.

They also sought a mandatory order requiring the University to investigate a separate discrimination complaint.

The court dismissed the motion in its entirety, finding that the investigator's independence was not compromised, there was no serious issue to be tried to justify interfering with an ongoing administrative process, and no mandatory duty to investigate the discrimination complaint had been triggered.

The applicant sought costs following a successful application to pass over the respondents and himself as estate trustees.

The applicant claimed full indemnity costs of $76,212.67.

The court applied a blended approach to costs, ordering the self-represented respondent Peter Childs to pay partial indemnity costs of $45,950.22 due to his vexatious conduct and vitriolic attacks.

The balance of $30,262.45 was ordered payable to the applicant out of the Estate.

No costs were awarded against the other respondents.

The applicant hotel owner sought damages and declaratory relief against the Ministry of Transportation for business losses caused by ferry project delays.

The Ministry moved to strike the application for failure to provide the mandatory 60-day notice under s. 18(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

The court struck the claims for damages but allowed the claims for declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of the parties' agreements to proceed.

The court also converted the surviving application into an action due to material facts in dispute and the need for factual matrix evidence, and adjourned the matter.

In an estates application, a sibling sought to pass over all named executors and appoint a neutral estate trustee due to prolonged, high-conflict litigation, deadlock, and allegations of re-litigation of previously determined matters.

The court held that although testamentary choice is to be respected, clear necessity existed because entrenched animosity and mistrust risked compromising proper administration of the estate.

The court found the majority-rule clause did not resolve repeated 2-2 deadlocks, and also found a genuine conflict concern arising from substantial unpaid costs awards to be offset against certain beneficiaries’ shares.

The court ordered all four siblings passed over and appointed a professional trustee without bond, directed that the trustee need not pursue already adjudicated litigation issues, declined to determine standing objections in a separate passing-of-accounts proceeding, and gave directions regarding implementation and holdback of costs awards.

Costs were reserved pending written submissions.

Multiple motions were brought in a long-running dispute over an on-reserve business partnership between a father and son.

The father sought his share of a bankruptcy dividend from his son's estate, arguing it was protected from seizure by his former lawyer's solicitor's lien and a receivership order under s. 89 of the Indian Act.

The court held that the bankruptcy dividend, held off-reserve by the Trustee, was not protected by s. 89.

The court confirmed the validity of the former lawyer's solicitor's lien, finding it attached to the father's off-reserve assets, including the dividend once transferred to the Receiver.

The court approved the Receiver's fees, which took priority over the solicitor's lien, and authorized the transfer of the dividend to the Receiver for distribution.

The appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for charges of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, resisting a peace officer, and breach of probation.

The appeal was based on the entry of an invalid plea of 'not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder' and the trial judge's failure to provide adequate reasons for the NCRMD finding under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the errors.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, quashed the NCR verdict, and ordered a new trial, noting the serious miscarriage of justice that resulted in the appellant's deprivation of liberty for nearly six years.

The charges were subsequently withdrawn upon the appellant entering into a peace bond.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter following the brutal killing of an 88-year-old woman during a home invasion.

The offender was in a state of extreme intoxication from methamphetamine at the time of the offence, raising potential automatism defences that led to the Crown accepting a plea to manslaughter instead of first-degree murder.

The court accepted a joint submission and sentenced the offender to 15 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for violence against vulnerable elderly victims.

The applicant sought a certificate of appointment as estate trustee with a will in respect of her deceased mother's estate.

The deceased had executed a will in Quebec in 1973 and a handwritten codicil in Ontario in 1998, with the estate consisting entirely of personal property.

The application was referred to a judge under Rule 74.14(4) to determine whether the Ontario court had jurisdiction to recognize a Quebec will amended by an Ontario holograph codicil.

Applying s. 36(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act and following Grillo Estate v. Grillo, the court found the deceased was domiciled in Ontario for over 35 years, the original Quebec will was valid, and the holograph codicil met Ontario requirements.

The application was granted and a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee was ordered to issue.