M. Gregory Ellies

In a criminal voir dire arising from sexual assault and sexual interference charges, the court considered whether oral and written statements made during a police interview were voluntary.

The accused argued that lack of sleep, emotional distress, and forceful police questioning rendered the statements involuntary.

Applying the confessions rule and the framework governing oppressive circumstances, the court found the interview was relatively brief, the accused remained lucid, had access to coffee, declined counsel, and his will was not overborne.

Both the verbal statements and the written apology were ruled voluntary and admissible at trial.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against the respondents.

The deputy judge had dismissed the action under Rule 12.02(3) on the basis that it was commenced after the expiry of the applicable limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was denied procedural fairness because the deputy judge had only solicited written submissions on whether the action was an abuse of process, not on the limitation period defence.

The dismissal order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Small Claims Court.

The defendant hospital and nurses brought a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the plaintiff's medical malpractice action.

The court found that the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden for summary judgment because they did not file expert evidence establishing they met the standard of care.

However, the court dismissed the action under Rule 15.04 because the plaintiff failed to appoint a new lawyer or file a notice of intention to act in person for over 18 months after his former lawyer was removed from the record.

The defendant dentists and physicians brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's dental and medical malpractice action.

The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a mandibular fracture following a wisdom tooth extraction and that the defendants failed to properly diagnose the injury.

The plaintiff's lawyer was previously removed from the record, and the plaintiff failed to appoint a new lawyer or serve notice of self-representation.

The defendants filed expert reports opining that they met the standard of care.

The plaintiff failed to respond with any expert evidence.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial without expert evidence from the plaintiff.

The moving party sought to change a 2016 consent order for spousal support, arguing that his income had materially decreased due to a strike and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The responding party opposed the motion, noting her significant physical disabilities and that the original order was intended to equalize joint debt.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the income decrease was temporary and that the responding party's circumstances justified continued support.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The applicant moved for summary judgment to enforce an accepted offer to settle regarding the jointly-owned matrimonial home.

The respondent argued the applicant was only entitled to equity as of the date of separation and sought to extend the expired deadline to buy out the applicant's interest.

The court found a binding agreement existed, the valuation date was the date of buyout or sale, and the respondent was responsible for the delay that caused the buyout deadline to expire.

The court ordered the home to be listed for sale immediately, with the applicant entitled to his share of the equity as of the date of sale.

The defendants moved under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to examine a non-party, a former employee of the plaintiff municipality, under oath.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants submitted fraudulent invoices to the municipality.

The court found that the non-party had relevant evidence regarding the invoices and that the defendants had made appropriate efforts to obtain the evidence before resorting to the motion.

The motion was granted, as it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without knowing the non-party's evidence.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding trustee compensation on a passing of accounts, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent (former trustee) sought full indemnity costs of $134,394.86, while the appellants argued for partial indemnity costs payable by the trust and sought their own costs from the trust.

The Divisional Court held that the respondent was entitled to full indemnity costs because he incurred them in his capacity as trustee.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $90,000 all-inclusive, ordering a blended costs award where the appellants pay 60 percent and the trust pays 40 percent.

The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of documents and information relating to two of the responding party's accounts: an investment account and a bank account.

The court found that the responding party had sufficiently answered the request regarding the investment account.

Regarding the bank account, the court ordered the responding party to provide an affidavit clarifying whether the account into which deposits were made was closed, or whether the account from which corresponding withdrawals were made was closed.

The motion was largely dismissed, and the responding party was awarded costs of $2,000.

The applicants, the Ontario Nurses' Association and others, brought an application against the Chief Medical Officer of Health.

The Divisional Court issued a brief endorsement dismissing the application, with reasons to follow.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants, beneficiaries of a family trust, appealed a trial judge's decision on the passing of accounts of the respondent trustee.

They argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, erred in failing to find a conflict of interest when the trustee hired lawyers from his own firm, and awarded unreasonable compensation.

They also sought leave to appeal the full indemnity costs awarded to the trustee.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and denied leave to appeal costs, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate in context, there was no palpable and overriding error in finding no conflict of interest, the compensation reduction was reasonable, and the costs award properly reflected the public policy of indemnifying trustees for reasonable administration expenses.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order by a Justice of the Peace.

The accused argued the JP erred in law by conflating the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention and by failing to apply the ladder principle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no legal errors.

The court held that the strength of the Crown's case and potential jail sentence are relevant considerations under the secondary grounds, and that the JP correctly concluded no release plan could mitigate the substantial risk of the accused re-offending.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) not to refer his complaint against the Ottawa Police Service for investigation.

The applicant alleged a state-sanctioned conspiracy involving individuals in red cars and claimed the police failed to investigate and were complicit.

The OIPRD screened out the complaint under the Police Services Act, concluding it was not in the public interest to investigate given the broad allegations and passage of time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and transparent.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision revoking his rent-geared-to-income (RGI) assistance.

The housing provider terminated the subsidy after discovering the applicant was subject to bail conditions requiring him to reside with a surety and prohibiting contact with his children, meaning he had been absent from the unit for over 60 days and failed to report a change in household composition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the administrative decision was reasonable, properly interpreted the legislative scheme, and adequately considered the applicant's circumstances.

The appellant mother sought to appeal a temporary order adding the child's kin as parties to a child protection proceeding for the limited purpose of seeking access.

The Divisional Court determined the order was interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal.

Applying the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court denied leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general importance.

The applicant initiated an application to enforce an agreement for a parcel of land that the respondent had failed to sign.

Before the application was heard, the respondent signed the agreement, rendering the primary relief sought moot.

The sole remaining issue was the applicant's entitlement to costs.

The court found that the application was reasonably commenced and was abandoned due to the respondent's actions.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $3,500, rejecting the respondent's argument for no costs and the applicant's request for substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants appealed a master's decision dismissing their motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained ex parte by the plaintiff purchaser.

The defendants argued the plaintiff failed to disclose a 'no registration' clause in the agreement of purchase and sale and that the master misapplied the test for a CPL.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law regarding material non-disclosure, as the clause did not unambiguously prohibit a CPL after the vendor terminated the agreement.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the master's assessment of the property's uniqueness and the balance of convenience.

The applicant sought an order for partition and sale of a jointly owned 61-acre rural property.

The respondent opposed the motion, raising five arguments including allegations of perjury, disputes over property valuation, child support arrears, equalization of net family property, and claims of hardship.

The court dismissed all of the respondent's arguments, finding them unpersuasive and unsupported by evidence.

The court granted the order for partition and sale, concluding that the hardship to the applicant if the property were not sold far outweighed any potential hardship to the respondent.

The defendant moved to strike the plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful distraint under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The plaintiff sought damages for relational economic loss, arguing it had a possessory or proprietary interest in restaurant equipment distrained by the defendant landlord from a previous tenant.

The court found that because the defendant had withheld consent to assign the lease to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not establish a possessory or proprietary interest in the chattels.

The motion was allowed and the claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

The applicant brought a motion within a family law application for equalization of net family property, seeking the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and the vesting of the respondent's corporate shares in her name.

The applicant argued these orders were necessary to preserve her entitlement to an equalization payment due to the respondent's depletion of assets and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a sale would cause undue hardship to the respondent, who suffered from severe alcoholism, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the orders to secure her claim.

A non-depletion order was issued against the respondent.