J.

Two co-defendants were convicted of undertaking a site alteration without a permit contrary to a municipal by-law, having imported a large quantity of gravel to a residential property and graded it to create a commercial truck parking area for a trucking business.

The court imposed fines of $7,500 each — reduced by 25% from the prosecution's request of $10,000 each to account for anticipated remediation costs — and ordered full remediation of the property.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the driveway maintenance exemption under s. 3.4(3) of the by-law was a mitigating factor, finding it inapplicable on the facts.

The court further held that the absence of proven environmental harm is a neutral, not mitigating, factor.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to add a maternal aunt as a party to a child protection proceeding, arguing that a Court of Appeal decision made it mandatory.

The child had been placed in the maternal aunt's temporary care.

The child's mother opposed the motion, expressing concerns about family division.

The maternal aunt tearfully withdrew her consent, stating she had not received independent legal advice and felt pressured by the Society.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Society's application of the cited case could have constitutional implications and that the process for adding parties must ensure procedural fairness, including proper notice, opportunity to respond, and independent legal advice for the proposed party.

The court also rejected the Society's argument that the temporary order should be deemed "with prejudice" due to the passage of time.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion seeking police enforcement of a final order and supervised parenting time for the Applicant Father.

She alleged the Applicant Father overheld the child in Montreal, contrary to a previous order, and has a history of disobeying court orders, including a restraining order and prior parenting time orders that required police intervention.

The Applicant Father argued his actions were justified by concerns about the child being taken to Cambodia and that his past breaches were irrelevant or excusable.

The court found the Applicant Father's history of non-compliance and threatening behaviour constituted family violence, demonstrating a pattern of coercive and controlling conduct.

The motion was granted, ordering supervised in-person parenting time for the Applicant Father due to concerns about his trustworthiness, the child's emotional safety, and threats made.

The plaintiff mortgagor sought summary judgment against the defendant second mortgagee regarding disputed charges included in a discharge statement.

The mortgagee had charged a $42,000 default maturity fee, increased the interest rate from 12% to 18% upon default, and levied $4,000 in administrative fees for payments made to the first mortgagee.

The court found that the default maturity fee and interest rate increase violated section 8 of the Interest Act as prohibited penalties.

The court also found no contractual basis for the administrative fees.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the overpaid amount of $53,457.10 plus costs.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and assault against his father, assault with a weapon against his sister, and two counts of failure to comply with probation orders.

The offences arose from a violent incident in the family home in the early morning hours of October 17, 2019.

The Crown called two witnesses—the father and sister—whose testimony was corroborated by security footage, a 911 recording, and photographs of injuries.

The accused did not testify or call evidence.

The court found the accused guilty of assault and assault with a weapon but rejected the aggravated assault charge, finding instead the lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm.

The court acquitted on the failure to comply charges based on the de minimus principle.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl, possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, and possession of the proceeds of crime.

Appearing by teleconference from pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic, the accused sought to enter a guilty plea without legal representation.

The court determined that the matter qualified as urgent under pandemic protocols due to the accused's deplorable detention conditions and Charter rights considerations.

However, the court held that while teleconference proceedings were not prohibited by the Criminal Code, video conferencing was preferable and required in this case to ensure a full and fair hearing for an unrepresented accused.

The court scheduled the guilty plea and sentencing hearing for video conference two days later.

The applicant father sought an urgent motion to change the children's residential schedule to establish equal time-sharing or primary residence with him, citing concerns about the respondent mother's work as a healthcare professional during the COVID-19 pandemic and the children residing with maternal grandparents.

The court, acting as a Triage Judge, found that the motion to change the residential schedule was not urgent, as the father failed to provide substantive evidence that the children were unsafe or that the existing arrangements needed urgent modification.

Furthermore, the court determined that the father's lack of access since March 20, 2020, was not urgent because he had refused offered access that did not meet his demand for equal time-sharing.

The court denied the urgent motion, encouraging parties to resume the regular residential schedule.

A motion brought by the respondent father to reinstate unsupervised access to two younger subject children following the suspension of such access by the child protection agency.

The court determined that while the agency had authority under the discretionary terms of the prior order to suspend access without a further court order, it would have been preferable for the agency to bring a motion.

The court found serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the father's supervision of the children, including evidence that the oldest child was caring for younger siblings while the father remained in his locked room, insufficient food in the home, and the apprehension of another child in the father's care.

The father failed to comply with multiple terms of the court order and provided no evidence of a plan to address the supervision concerns.

The motion for unsupervised access was dismissed.

The defendants, Medi-Promotions Inc. and PrintPad (2009) Inc., moved to stay the action for want of territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction and to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

Defendant Marktech Services Inc. also moved to strike portions of the Statement of Claim.

The court dismissed the motions to stay and to strike for abuse of process, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Ontario was the convenient forum.

However, the court granted the motion to strike specific portions of the Statement of Claim, including the tracing claim against Marktech and the fraudulent activities and bad faith allegations against all moving defendants, due to insufficient material facts and lack of specificity, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend.

The defendants, Medi-Promotions Inc. and PrintPad (2009) Inc., moved to stay the action for want of territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction and to strike the claim as an abuse of process.

Defendant Marktech Services Inc. also moved to strike portions of the Statement of Claim.

The court dismissed the motions to stay and to strike for abuse of process, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Ontario was the convenient forum.

However, the court granted the motion to strike specific portions of the Statement of Claim, including the tracing claim against Marktech and the fraudulent activities and bad faith allegations against all moving defendants, due to insufficient material facts and lack of specificity, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend.

This motion concerned the scope of documentary discovery in a defamation action.

The defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to produce documents related to prior arrests, hospitalizations, a diversion program, communications with Columbia University, and employment/health records, arguing relevance to justification and mitigation of damages.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, holding that the requested documents went beyond the narrow scope of documentary discovery permitted in defamation cases, particularly when justification is pleaded.

The court emphasized that a defendant cannot embark on a "fishing expedition" to buttress general allegations or to impugn the plaintiff's character and credibility through unrelated past incidents, especially when such incidents were not known to the defendant at the time of the alleged defamation or properly pleaded for mitigation.

The defendant was charged under the Dog Owners Liability Act with failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from biting a person.

The complainant alleged that the defendant's German shepherd bit her while she was riding her bicycle on a public road.

The defendant maintained that her dog was properly secured when she left the property and that the complainant frequently trespassed on her property and provoked the dogs.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that the steps taken by the defendant to secure her dog constituted reasonable precautions, particularly given the absence of prior aggressive behaviour by the dog and the ambiguity regarding where the bite occurred.