I. F. Leach

The accused brought a pre‑trial Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine discovered during a warrantless search following his arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He alleged violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him and that the resulting search was unlawful.

The court held that the arresting officer had both subjective and objectively reasonable grounds based on a reliable confidential informant, corroborating police investigation, and surveillance consistent with drug trafficking activity.

Because the arrest was lawful, the subsequent search of the accused’s person was a valid search incident to arrest.

The court therefore found no Charter breaches and declined to exclude the evidence.

The moving party sought to set aside an earlier order dismissing an appeal in a child protection matter on the basis of delay.

The motion relied on Rules 37.14 and 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing lack of notice, alleged misconduct by opposing counsel, and the existence of new evidence.

The court held that Rule 37.14 did not apply because the earlier motion had proceeded with proper notice and the moving party had appeared through counsel, and further found that the motion was not brought forthwith as required.

The court also rejected reliance on Rule 59.06(2), finding no fraud, no qualifying fresh evidence that would have changed the result, and no basis for alternative relief inconsistent with the original order.

The motion was dismissed and the prior dismissal of the appeal remained in effect.

The accused was charged with four counts of possessing controlled substances (cocaine, oxycodone, marihuana, heroin) for the purpose of trafficking and one count of carrying a concealed weapon.

The police arrested the accused for an alleged assault and subsequently searched him and a shoulder bag he dropped, finding drugs, a digital scale, cash, cell phones, and a concealed knife.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the arrest for assault was lawful based on reasonable and probable grounds, and the subsequent searches were validly conducted incident to arrest.

Relying on expert police evidence regarding the indicia of drug trafficking, the court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The offender was convicted after trial of three counts each of impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from a high-speed impaired driving incident that caused a severe head-on collision and serious injuries to three victims.

The court considered extensive aggravating factors including a blood alcohol concentration more than twice the legal limit, prolonged dangerous driving on a busy highway, and devastating and permanent injuries to one victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, otherwise exemplary life, genuine remorse, and severe permanent injuries he himself sustained in the collision.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence in impaired driving offences, the court imposed concurrent custodial sentences.

Ancillary orders included probation conditions and a lengthy driving prohibition.

The applicants sought declarations and injunctive relief concerning a 15‑foot-wide strip of land subject to express rights of way benefiting four adjacent cottage properties in a Lake Huron subdivision.

The respondents, who had acquired ownership of the strip, erected a fence and locked gate to deter alleged trespass by other residents.

The court held that the easement, granted “for all purposes,” was among the broadest possible forms of right of way and had historically been exercised without restriction.

The installation of a fence and locked gate requiring keys substantially interfered with the applicants’ ability to exercise the easement conveniently and was not justified by the respondents’ evidence of trespass concerns.

Mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were granted requiring removal of the fence and prohibiting future obstructions without authorization, and the respondents’ counter‑application seeking validation of the barrier was dismissed.

The defendants in a lawyer negligence action brought a motion seeking an order that their action be tried simultaneously or consecutively with a related wrongful dismissal action involving overlapping factual and legal issues.

The court considered Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the policy in s.138 of the Courts of Justice Act favouring the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

The judge found substantial commonality of issues, particularly regarding whether alleged professional negligence caused the loss of damages sought in the wrongful dismissal claim.

Separate trials risked duplication of evidence, inconsistent findings, and unnecessary expense.

The court ordered that the two actions be tried together or consecutively, subject to the discretion of the trial judge.

A municipality brought an ex parte application seeking to dispense with service on deceased trustees and to vest title to a parcel of land in the municipality free of a historic trust.

The land had been transferred in 1923 to trustees to hold in trust for use as a public hall for the community.

The court held that the arrangement constituted a valid charitable purpose trust that did not lapse merely because the trustees were deceased or the trust had been poorly administered.

Where the charitable purpose may have become impracticable, the proper approach is a cy‑pres scheme, and the Public Guardian and Trustee must be served under the Charities Accounting Act.

The requested vesting order could not be granted and the application was dismissed without prejudice to a renewed application with proper notice.

The offenders, both of aboriginal descent, pleaded guilty to offences arising from an altercation at a private residence.

Doxtator pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and Elijah pleaded guilty to assault.

The court applied Gladue principles, noting both offenders' difficult backgrounds and recent rehabilitative efforts.

Doxtator received a suspended sentence and 18 months' probation.

Elijah, who caused significant facial injuries to the victim, received a 45-day intermittent custodial sentence and 18 months' probation.

The offender was convicted by a jury of robbery, uttering death threats, extortion, and using an imitation firearm.

The offences involved a prolonged period of terrorizing a vulnerable victim over an alleged debt owed by her sister.

The court weighed the offender's extensive criminal record and the profound impact on the victim against his recent rehabilitative efforts in custody.

A global sentence of 4 years and 8 months was imposed, including a consecutive 2-year sentence for the imitation firearm offence, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA sample, a non-communication order, and $900 in restitution.

The applicant First Nation sought a declaration regarding its legal interest in a lot located within its reserve boundaries.

During the hearing, the applicant narrowed its request to a declaration that it holds the registered interest in the lot, subject to any rights the respondent band member might have under a 1986 Housing Loan Agreement.

The self-represented respondent did not oppose this narrowed relief, though she asserted broader rights to the property which were not formally before the court.

The court granted the limited declaration and declined to entertain requests for further injunctive or declaratory relief without proper notice.

In a child protection proceeding, the applicant society sought summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether courts hearing such motions may exercise the expanded fact‑finding powers available under Rule 20.04(2.1) and (2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court held that Rule 16 does not confer jurisdiction to weigh evidence, assess credibility, or draw inferences in the same manner as the civil rules because the legislature has not amended the family rules to provide those powers.

The Hryniak “cultural shift” applies only to the extent of interpreting existing jurisdiction broadly, but it does not create new fact‑finding powers absent legislative authorization.

Accordingly, summary judgment motions in family and child protection matters under Rule 16 are limited to determining whether a genuine issue requiring a trial exists based solely on the evidentiary record.

On a contested passing of accounts, estate trustees sold the estate’s principal asset—a farm—to a sibling beneficiary for substantially less than its appraised market value and without exposing the property to the open market.

Beneficiary objectors alleged breach of fiduciary duty, improper estate expenditures, and excessive executor compensation.

The court held the estate trustees breached fiduciary obligations by selling the asset below fair market value and failing to treat beneficiaries impartially.

Certain estate expenditures incurred in connection with the improper transaction were characterized as waste and ordered repaid personally by the trustees, while other costs associated with a subsequent open-market sale were allowed.

Executor compensation was significantly reduced and the accounts approved subject to the court’s corrections and disallowances.

The plaintiffs brought a motion compelling production of certain investigative documents, including an internal “Incident Bulletin” and employee witness statements, arising from a petrochemical facility shutdown allegedly caused by repair work performed by the defendants.

The defendants asserted solicitor‑client and litigation privilege and sought orders requiring the plaintiffs to destroy copies of the documents already in their possession.

The court held the defendants failed to establish that the documents were created for the dominant purpose of litigation or for obtaining legal advice, finding instead that they were generated primarily for operational investigation and business relationship management.

In any event, the court found that the defendants voluntarily disclosed the documents to the plaintiffs through a senior manager with ostensible authority, constituting waiver of any privilege.

The plaintiffs’ motion for production of the documents was granted and the defendants’ motion asserting privilege was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss a civil action arising from a brief consensual dating relationship between two adults.

The plaintiff alleged emotional harm and sought damages following the breakdown of the relationship, asserting an unspecified “intentional tort” and claiming the defendant had used her and caused serious distress.

The court held that the action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 21.01(3)(d) because the litigation was primarily motivated by a desire for punishment, revenge, and harassment rather than legitimate legal relief.

The court further held that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b), rejecting attempts to frame the facts as intentional infliction of mental suffering or negligence arising from a failed intimate relationship.

The action was dismissed.

Following a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted, the plaintiffs recovered modest damages far below the amounts claimed.

The plaintiffs sought over $422,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendants argued the claim was disproportionate and relied on prior settlement offers.

The court analyzed proportionality, conduct of the litigation, trial duration, settlement efforts, and Rule 57.01 cost factors.

Although the defendants’ offers did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10, they were considered relevant under Rule 49.13.

Balancing the disproportionate costs sought, litigation conduct, settlement history, and the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either side.

A third party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order refusing summary judgment that would have dismissed a counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court reviewed the test under Rule 62.02(4) for leave to appeal interlocutory orders to the Divisional Court.

Although aspects of the motion judge’s reasoning raised issues open to debate, the order itself was supported by independent grounds, including triable issues relating to equitable set‑off and discoverability.

The court held there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of broader public importance warranting appellate intervention.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages, the defendant insurer brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic low back pain was caused by the accident and constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary loss and future care costs.

The accused was charged with obstructing justice and several firearms offences after removing a shell casing from the scene of a shooting and storing an AK-47 rifle and prohibited magazine in his bedroom.

The police conducted a warrantless entry into his home under exigent circumstances to preserve evidence, during which they found the rifle.

A subsequent warranted search located the magazine.

The court found the accused guilty of obstructing justice.

On a Charter application, the court ruled the warrantless entry was lawful but the seizure of the rifle violated s. 8 as it was not in plain view.

However, the rifle was admitted under s. 24(2).

The search warrant was upheld as valid.

The accused was found guilty on all counts, with two counts conditionally stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Following a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiffs' claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded modest damages, implicitly rejecting much of the plaintiffs' evidence on causation and credibility.

However, the trial judge conducted an independent assessment and found the principal plaintiff to be credible.

The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered from chronic low back pain caused by the accident, which constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the statutory threshold.

The plaintiffs sought costs following a 22-day product liability trial where the jury awarded them $1,157,850 in damages but found the plaintiff 25% contributorily negligent.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the plaintiffs' request for substantial indemnity costs and a cost premium.

The court also declined the defendants' request to reduce the costs award by 25% to reflect the contributory negligence finding, noting that the plaintiff's negligence did not materially affect the prospects for settlement.

The plaintiffs were awarded $387,140 in fees, plus HST and disbursements.