Healey

The applicant, acting as Attorney for Property and Estate Trustee, brought a motion for summary judgment to validate the deceased's 2010 will and 2008 revocation of prior wills, and an application for vacant possession of a property occupied by the respondents.

The respondents challenged the will and claimed an interest in the property based on alleged contributions and an unwritten agreement.

Applying the Hryniak framework, the court found no genuine issue for trial regarding testamentary capacity or undue influence, declaring the 2010 will and 2008 revocation valid.

The court granted vacant possession to the estate, noting the respondents failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds or provide corroborating evidence under the Evidence Act for an interest in land, but directed a reference to determine any unjust enrichment claim for improvements made to the property.

The landlord and tenant under a commercial lease both commenced applications regarding alleged defaults and rent calculations.

The landlord brought a motion to dismiss the tenant's application, arguing that the claims were barred by a prior settlement and mutual release executed in September 2013.

The court applied an objective approach to contractual interpretation and the doctrine of res judicata, finding that the release barred any claims existing prior to September 30, 2013.

However, the court held that the release did not bar the tenant's right to a rent reconciliation for the 2013 calendar year or ongoing rights under the lease.

The court ordered the remaining issues regarding square footage and rent quantum to proceed to trial as an action.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, arguing a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was based on a tip from a confidential informant regarding marijuana trafficking.

The court applied the Debot framework to assess whether the informant's tip was compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court found that while the informant's credibility was unascertainable, the compelling nature of the tip, combined with police corroboration of biographical details and the applicant's criminal record, provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought orders for section 7 expenses, equalization, transfer of the matrimonial home, and costs following an uncontested trial where the respondent was noted in default.

The respondent failed to provide financial disclosure and ignored court orders.

The court imputed the respondent's income at $150,000, ordered him to pay 61% of eligible section 7 expenses, and calculated an equalization payment of $412,377.50 owing to the applicant.

To partially satisfy the equalization payment, the court ordered the transfer of the matrimonial home to the applicant.

Full indemnity costs were awarded due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct, and a show cause hearing for contempt was scheduled.

The applicant constructed two multi-unit residential buildings and sought to rent each unit to up to seven students.

The City opposed, arguing that renting to more than four students would classify the units as 'boarding, lodging or rooming houses', which were not permitted in the zone, and would violate the Building Code.

The applicant sought declarations that the project was a 'stacked townhouse' and could legally rent to seven occupants per unit.

The court found that the students living together constituted a 'single household unit' and therefore the units were 'dwelling units' rather than boarding houses under both the zoning by-law and the Building Code.

The court granted the applicant's declarations and ordered the City to issue a final occupancy permit without conditions on the number of occupants.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for a deficiency balance following the repossession and sale of a vehicle.

The Deputy Judge had dismissed the claim on the basis that the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Part V of the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA).

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the Small Claims Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice and has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims involving the PPSA within its monetary limits.

The court also admitted fresh evidence regarding the Notice of Sale and granted judgment for the appellant for the deficiency balance.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 23-year marriage.

The court determined the appropriate quantum of retroactive and ongoing spousal support, taking into account the parties' respective incomes and the respondent's failure to prove the applicant was intentionally under-employed.

The court also calculated the equalization of net family properties, addressing disputes over the valuation of vehicles, notional tax rates on RRSPs, and deductions for pre-marriage assets.

The applicant was ordered to pay an equalization payment, while the respondent was ordered to pay ongoing spousal support and retroactive support arrears.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for two young children due to the mother's chronic cocaine addiction.

Despite completing a rehabilitation program and demonstrating good parenting skills during supervised access, the mother continued to relapse and use cocaine, as evidenced by multiple hair follicle and urine tests.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm from the mother's substance abuse and lifestyle.

Concluding that the mother could not control her addiction in the foreseeable future, the court ordered Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption.

The plaintiff sued his mother and sister to enforce an alleged oral agreement concerning a 100-acre parcel of land.

The plaintiff claimed he was entitled to ownership of certain portions of the land and a significant share of the profits from the sale of subdivision lands to a developer, in exchange for his efforts in representing his mother at Ontario Municipal Board hearings.

The court dismissed the action, finding no legally enforceable agreement existed.

The court concluded there was no mutual intention to create legal relations and that the essential terms of the alleged agreement lacked certainty.

The mother's counterclaim for damages was also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant municipality sought a permanent injunction under section 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001 to restrain the respondent from operating an outdoor wood-burning furnace, alleging it contravened a by-law prohibiting emissions that unreasonably interfere with the normal enjoyment of property.

Neighbours complained of thick smoke infiltrating their homes and preventing outdoor activities.

Applying nuisance law principles, the court balanced the severity of the interference against the utility of the furnace.

The court found the smoke constituted an unreasonable interference during the warmer months and granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the operation of the furnace between April 1 and October 15 annually.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility, taking judicial notice of weather conditions, and applying the modified objective test for dangerous driving.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included testimony from civilian motorists and a police officer regarding the appellant's erratic driving, excessive speed, and aggressive maneuvers on Highway 400.

The court upheld the finding that the appellant's conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable driver.