M. Gregory Ellies

The applicant sought equalization of net family property following the dissolution of her marriage.

The respondent's pleadings were struck for failing to fulfill financial disclosure obligations under the Family Law Rules, and the matter proceeded as an uncontested trial.

The court undertook a detailed valuation of the parties' real property holdings, farm equipment, and the respondent's LIRA pension, relying on MPAC assessments, appraisals, and available bank statements in the absence of disclosure from the respondent.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $229,896.35 as an equalization payment, less two advances totalling $69,657.21, for a net payment of $160,239.14, together with prejudgment interest and costs.

On an application for a stay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, the court held that although total delay reached 1,316 days, 455.5 days were properly attributed to defence delay (including multiple adjournments, failures to appear, delayed election steps, and partial apportionment after late notice of delay concerns).

After deduction, net delay was 860.5 days (28.3 months), below the 30-month Jordan ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The application was dismissed.

In a bifurcated family property trial involving an unmarried couple, the court addressed claims concerning a home on First Nation reserve land and allegations of unjust enrichment.

The responding party sought a proprietary interest and partition and sale under First Nation matrimonial property law and, alternatively, provincial partition legislation.

The court held that a non-band member could not be granted a beneficial interest in reserve land and rejected partition and sale as an available remedy on the facts and legal framework.

The court nevertheless found unjust enrichment and awarded a monetary remedy calibrated to contributions and the benefit received through rent-free occupation.

The applicant was ordered to pay damages with pre-judgment interest, and costs were left for further submissions if not agreed.

The respondent in a family law application moved under r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside an order noting her in default for failing to serve and file an answer.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to set aside the noting of default under r. 25(19) because the respondent had proper notice and was physically present at the motion.

The court also declined to adopt a procedure analogous to r. 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding no gap in the FLRs warranted filling.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would not have exercised its discretion in the respondent's favour given her unexplained and unreasonable failure to comply with the rules over nearly a year.

On a temporary parenting motion, the moving party sought a graduated parenting-time order and related communication and counselling relief after a breakdown in parent-child contact following separation.

The responding party and the child’s counsel opposed compelled parenting time and asked that the child’s preferences govern contact.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Divorce Act and the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court declined to force parenting time immediately but imposed interim conduct, communication, and information-sharing terms designed to support eventual reconnection.

The order was made without prejudice and the motion was adjourned for review, with leave to vary without proving a material change if progress is insufficient.

No costs were ordered due to mixed success.

The Crown applied for permission to introduce similar fact evidence in a case involving six charges of sexual touching and extortion of a nude photograph.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence that the defendant attempted to obtain a nude photograph from the complainant's friend (extrinsic similar fact evidence) and to have evidence relating to the photograph charges admitted in support of the sexual touching charges (cross-count similar fact evidence).

The court granted the extrinsic similar fact evidence application but denied the cross-count similar fact evidence application, finding insufficient probative value in the latter.

The offender was convicted following a jury trial of sexual assault and voyeurism (surreptitiously making a visual recording) involving his intimate partner.

The offender recorded videos and photographs of the victim without her consent while she was unconscious, depicting him inserting objects into her body.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the defence sought less than two years in the community.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, finding the starting point of three years for forced penetration offences was appropriate with one additional year for the voyeurism conviction imposed consecutively.

The court considered the breach of trust inherent in intimate partner violence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the degree of physical interference with bodily integrity as aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's lack of criminal record, solid work history, and steps toward addressing substance abuse issues.

The accused was charged with sexually touching a child on three or four occasions when she was approximately 11 years old.

The Crown alleged that the accused touched the complainant's breasts, buttocks, and vagina under her clothing while she was intoxicated at a firepit and subsequently in the basement and bedroom of the family home.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found both witnesses credible but identified significant implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, including that she would not be wearing underwear at age 11 and that each alleged incident would follow an identical pattern.

Finding these implausibilities created a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted the accused on both charges.

The applicant mother sought a temporary order requiring the parties' four-year-old child to attend school in Sturgeon Falls, where she resides, and requested changes to the parenting time regime to accommodate the child's school attendance.

The respondent father opposed the motion and requested that the child attend school in Markstay, located roughly halfway between the parties' residences.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding that attendance at École Publique Jeunesse Active in Sturgeon Falls was in the child's best interests based on the composition of the student body and the excessive travel time that would be required if the child attended school in Markstay.

The court also modified the parenting time schedule and imposed a costs award of $2,000 all-inclusive against the father.

The court considered competing motions regarding the matrimonial home: the respondent sought exclusive possession and a transfer of the home into his name, while the applicant sought partition and sale under the Partition Act.

The court found that both motions were, in substance, for final relief and analyzed them accordingly.

The court held that the respondent had not established grounds for exclusive possession or for a transfer of the home, and that the applicant was entitled to an order for sale, but not exclusive control of the sale process.

Directions were given for the sale and for the holding of proceeds in trust.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, moved for an order requiring the plaintiff’s accident benefits insurer to produce a file relating to a 2011 motor vehicle accident, arguing its relevance to a 2017 accident at issue in the present action.

The court found the moving party failed to establish either the relevance of the documents or that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them, and dismissed the motion.

The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The court considered a motion for judgment based on the defendants’ failure to respond to requests to admit under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought judgment for monies allegedly owing for asbestos removal services.

The court allowed the defendants a tightly timetabled opportunity to move to withdraw their deemed admissions, citing fairness and the lack of non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate representation, refusing further leave for the corporate defendant to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The decision addresses the allocation of costs following a motion regarding the fairness and reasonableness of a contingency fee agreement in a personal injury settlement involving a minor.

The court awards full indemnity costs for guardianship proceedings and partial/substantial indemnity costs for the fees motion, analyzing the appropriateness of the costs claimed and the conduct of the parties.

This decision addresses an application for a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, brought by Nicholas Aaron Martin and Mackenzie Doyle.

The applicants, charged with serious offences including robbery and pointing a firearm, argued that the delay in bringing their case to trial—over 52 months—exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the sources of delay, including the presence of multiple accused and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and found that the net delay still exceeded the ceiling.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following the settlement of two related personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court addresses disputes over the reasonableness and recoverability of various disbursements and legal fees, including expert reports, travel, and office expenses.

The court reduces certain disbursements and fees, providing detailed reasons for each adjustment, and clarifies the principles for assessing costs in complex personal injury litigation.

Norman Ellis pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation under section 153(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered whether the sentence should be served in custody or in the community.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence; the defence sought less than two years to allow for a conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the facts, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles, ultimately imposing a five-year custodial sentence.

The decision discusses the gravity of sexual offences against minors, the impact on the victim, and the unavailability of a conditional sentence in these circumstances.

The court considered three motions under the Family Law Rules: one by the applicant to note the respondent in default for failing to respond to a motion to change, and two by the respondent that did not comply with the Rules.

The court granted the respondent a brief extension to comply and struck most of her non-compliant materials.

The decision discusses the respondent's repeated non-compliance, her excuses, and the importance of following procedural rules, especially in family law matters involving children.

The plaintiffs, Lloyd Newton and the Estate of Donna Marion, brought an action against the Anishinabek Police Services and related defendants for damages arising from criminal charges laid against them, which were later withdrawn after restitution.

The claims included negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and a variety of other torts.

The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The judge held that most claims were not actionable by the plaintiffs, and that the criminal proceedings did not terminate in the plaintiffs’ favour, precluding claims for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation.

The accused, A.M.T., was charged with sexual assault.

The sole issue at trial was initially presented as identity, but the court found that the credibility and reliability of the complainant’s account were also at issue.

The court reviewed the evidence, including inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, lack of corroborating evidence, and implausibilities in the narrative.

The court concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to the accused’s guilt and acquitted A.M.T.