Ivan S. Bloom

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography, specifically text messages, contrary to sections 163.1(2) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person depicted in the messages was under 18 years old.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including an agreed statement of facts and the text messages exchanged between the accused and an undercover officer.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Villaroman and R. v. Starr regarding circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof.

Ultimately, the court found that the only reasonable inference was that the numbers "13" and "14" in the messages referred to age, and convicted the accused on both counts.

The Applicants sought damages and forfeiture of a deposit arising from a failed residential property purchase and sale agreement.

The Respondents argued they were entitled to not close due to the Applicants' innocent material misrepresentation regarding municipal taxes and alleged bad faith.

The court found that an "entire agreement" clause in the contract precluded reliance on the alleged misrepresentation, and consequently, the bad faith argument failed.

The Applicants were awarded damages of $425,319.69 and the $100,000 deposit was forfeited.

This decision addresses three motions: the defendants' motion to dismiss the action for delay and discharge a certificate of pending litigation, the plaintiff's cross-motion to compel discovery and strike the defense, and the defendants' motion for security for costs.

The court dismissed the defendants' motions, finding that the plaintiff's delay was not inordinate or inexcusable, particularly given the defendants' own defaults in discovery obligations.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering the defendants to provide an affidavit of documents and attend examinations for discovery within a set timetable.

The motion for security for costs was also dismissed, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations of fraudulent asset stripping.

The defendants, Rosemary Palmieri, De Zen Realty Company Ltd., Sam Jonathan Lee, and Master’s Roofing and Supplies Inc., brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss an action for damages caused by a fire in a commercial storage unit leased by the plaintiff.

The action alleged negligence and breach of contract.

The court found that the commercial lease's insurance clauses, specifically Articles 10.01 and 10.02, operated as an assumption of risk by the tenant (plaintiff) and included a waiver of subrogation against the landlord and its agents.

The court also found that an exclusion clause (Article 6.12) in the lease was valid and applicable.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding the landlord's duty to render premises insurable, waiver by the landlord, and unconscionability were rejected due to lack of pleading, evidentiary support, or legal merit.

The court concluded that the matter was appropriate for summary judgment.

This endorsement addresses a costs ruling following successful summary judgment motions.

The defendants, as moving parties for costs, sought $70,000 in partial indemnity costs in each of two proceedings.

The plaintiffs, as responding parties, argued against the award, citing lack of notice regarding certain claims and the potential impediment to their ongoing litigation against other defendants.

The court granted the defendants the full requested costs, totaling $140,000, finding that the defendants were entirely successful, their offer to settle was generous, the allegations against them were serious, and the amount sought was reasonable.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments against the costs award.

The plaintiff, Powerone Solutions Inc., brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of contract against the defendant, Trans-Tec Inc. The contract involved the sale of fixed assets and inventory, with a 'time is of the essence' clause.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to provide access to the assets until July 31, 2018, due to a landlord lockout, and raised defenses of contract ambiguity, frustration, and set-off.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the interpretation of the contract, particularly concerning access to assets and the application of the parol evidence rule.

The court also determined that the issue of estoppel by convention and the effect of document destruction required a trial.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, with costs to be addressed separately.

This case is an appeal under s. 25 of the Building Code Act, 1992, concerning five compliance orders issued by the chief building official.

The appellant challenged two of the orders, arguing that the official erred in finding a "dwelling" on the premises.

The court affirmed all orders, holding that the official was only required to determine if the structures were "buildings" under the Act, not necessarily "dwellings," and found no reversible error.

The decision also clarified the applicable standard of review for statutory appeals and the court's limited jurisdiction regarding tort claims.

The accused, Marcus Lyons, was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault.

In this sentencing decision, the court addressed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused administered THC to the victim, finding it was not proven due to inconclusive expert testimony.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the presence of the victim's two-year-old son during the assault and the accused's prior convictions for violence, alongside mitigating factors such as his good work record and family ties.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed an 18-month term of incarceration, a 20-year sex offender registration order, an order to provide DNA samples, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The parties brought cross-motions concerning discovery issues, including compelling answers to undertakings, under advisements, and refusals, access to accounting software, and setting a timetable for subsequent steps.

The court ordered various questions to be answered and documents produced, emphasizing relevance and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Access to the defendant's accounting software was granted to the plaintiff.

The court also set a timetable for further discovery and expert reports, reserving costs to the trial judge due to divided success.

The Applicant sought monetary damages for unjust enrichment based on a joint family venture, an order for no equalization payment, and a lump sum spousal support payment.

The Respondent opposed these claims.

The court found that the Applicant had established unjust enrichment within a joint family venture due to her contributions to the Respondent's business (GS Medical) and household, and her corresponding deprivation (giving up her career, underpaid/unpaid labor).

The court also found the Applicant entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases, noting the luxurious lifestyle during cohabitation and the Applicant's economic disadvantage.

Due to the Respondent's lack of financial disclosure, adverse inferences were drawn regarding the value of his business.

The court awarded the Applicant $3,000,000 for unjust enrichment and $365,624.00 net of tax for lump sum spousal support, plus prejudgment interest.

The divorce application was granted.

The Children's Aid Society of the Region of Peel appealed a lower court order that required it to hire a third-party professional supervision service for supervised home visits.

The Society argued that this requirement contravened s. 94(6)(c) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), which prohibits compelling the Society to provide financial assistance or purchase goods/services for supervision orders.

Applying a correctness standard of review, the court found that the lower court's order did indeed contravene s. 94(6)(c) by obligating the Society to purchase services.

The appeal was allowed, and the impugned provision of the order was set aside.

This endorsement addresses two motions brought under Family Law Rule 25(19) to correct errors in a prior judgment.

The Applicant's motion sought to correct a misapprehension of evidence regarding a shared debt's quantum, which the court granted, adjusting the amount from $325,000 to $650,000.

The Respondent Imran Khan's motion sought to reduce a retroactive spousal support lump sum award by considering income tax consequences.

The court dismissed this motion, ruling that FLR 25(19)(b) and (c) do not provide jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions or errors of law, only typographical or mathematical errors, or matters not previously decided.

This is a costs endorsement following a lengthy trial in a family law proceeding.

The Applicant sought over $500,000 in costs, arguing she was entirely successful on all issues, particularly custody and access, and that her settlement offers were bested at trial.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the costs were unreasonable and that the Applicant was not entitled to pre-trial costs or full indemnity.

The court awarded the Applicant partial indemnity costs of $454,968.78, finding her largely successful and noting the Respondent's unreasonable conduct and failure to accept reasonable settlement offers.

The court declined to sever and make a portion of the costs collectible as child support.

The plaintiff condominium corporation moved for summary judgment against the defendants for common expense arrears, an unauthorized cheque, and declarations of oppression and breach of director's duty.

The defendants counterclaimed for oppression and raised a limitations defense.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly concerning witness credibility and the informal operation of the Board.

The court also noted that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to the risk of duplicative and inconsistent findings given the shared factual background.

The applicants, CRD Construction Ltd. and Rob Leshuk, sought a declaration that their insurers, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and Economical Mutual Insurance Company, had a duty to defend them against a counterclaim and to reimburse their legal fees.

The court found that Economical had waived its right to deny the duty to defend due to a reservation of rights letter and its acceptance.

However, the court found that the applicants' breaches of the duty of cooperation constituted non-compliance, making relief from forfeiture unavailable against Aviva, and that the applicants failed to prove their conduct was reasonable for relief from forfeiture against either insurer regarding the duty of cooperation.

Economical was ordered to defend and reimburse the applicants, while the application against Aviva was dismissed.

Tianya Shao, a director and secretary of the Plaintiff, Prime Global Solutions Inc., brought a motion under sections 246(1) and 247 of the Business Corporations Act (Ontario) seeking leave to bring a derivative action on behalf of the Plaintiff and to be appointed to control its conduct.

The Defendant, Lambton Conveyor Limited, did not oppose the motion.

Three other directors of the Plaintiff (Daniel Sturgeon, John Christopher Moorhouse, and Richard Depooter) refused to consent to the relief sought, necessitating the motion, but did not appear to oppose it.

The court granted leave for the derivative action, appointed Mr. Shao to control its conduct, and awarded substantial indemnity costs of $6423.02 against the three non-consenting directors, payable jointly and severally.

The court also addressed potential procedural defects by invoking Rules 1.04(1), 1.04(1.1), 2.01, and 2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Applicant sought interim custody, interim child support, retroactive child support, and enforcement of a prior disclosure order.

The Respondent sought interim access.

The court granted interim custody to the Applicant and ordered the Respondent to pay interim child support based on an imputed annual income of $40,000, declining retroactive support at this stage due to the interim nature of the order and the state of the record.

The Respondent was granted supervised daytime access on alternate weekends, with overnight access denied due to the children's best interests and the unsuitability of the Respondent's living arrangements.

The court also ordered the Respondent to comply with the outstanding disclosure order within 15 days, failing which the Applicant could seek further relief.

Costs submissions were invited.

The Applicant and Respondent A. S. Tsinoglou brought cross-motions concerning interim child support, spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, interim access, and return of belongings.

The court addressed these issues prior to a case conference due to urgency and hardship.

The court found Santiago and Alejandra to be children of the marriage for interim child support purposes, awarded interim child and spousal support to the Applicant, and granted her exclusive possession of the matrimonial home (a leasehold interest) and maintenance payments from A. S. Tsinoglou.

Interim access was granted to A. S. Tsinoglou for Christian, and he was permitted to retrieve belongings.

The accused, Jerome Lemon-Allison, was charged with robbery of a Scotiabank branch.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video identification, inculpatory statements made to undercover police officers, and evidence of acts and circumstances.

The court applied principles from R. v. Nikolovski for video identification and R. v. Villaroman for assessing circumstantial evidence.

The doctrine of recent possession was considered but not ultimately applied.

The court found a strong resemblance between the accused and individuals in Snapchat and surveillance videos, and accepted the reliability of the undercover officers' testimony regarding the accused's admissions about possessing cash and needing money laundering services.

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was a party to the robbery and found him guilty as charged.

The applicant brought a motion for an order dispensing with service on the respondent and for directions.

The court awarded interim custody of the children to the applicant without access to the respondent, finding it in the children's best interests, and granted the applicant decision-making authority for medical and educational needs.

An uncontested trial on affidavit evidence was ordered to address permanent custody, access, and the effect of a Quebec court order.

Other claims by the applicant, such as a declaration of biological fatherhood and birth certificate amendments, were not to be addressed at this trial due to the absence of appropriate parties.