Jacqueline A. Horvat

Following a motion for interim parenting time, the applicant sought costs of over $82,000 on a full indemnity scale.

The court found the requested costs to be disproportionate for a straightforward family motion, noting there was no basis for elevated costs such as reprehensible conduct by the respondent.

The court awarded the applicant a reasonable and proportionate costs award of $2,500, payable at the completion of the litigation to avoid jeopardizing the respondent's ability to participate.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of over 45 grams of fentanyl.

The drugs were found in his vehicle after police responded to a report of impaired driving.

The offender struggled with substance use disorder following the death of his father.

The court found a conditional discharge contrary to the public interest but imposed a 90-day conditional sentence followed by two years of probation, emphasizing the offender's rehabilitative efforts.

The offender was convicted by a jury of one count of sexual assault.

The assault involved forceful vaginal penetration and attempted anal penetration despite the complainant's clear lack of consent.

The court rejected the Crown's submission that a knife was used, finding reasonable doubt on that fact.

The court found the offender's lack of remorse, prior criminal record, and the significant psychological impact on the complainant to be aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to four years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

Following the dismissal of an estate application regarding beneficiary designations, the court determined the costs payable to the successful respondent.

The respondent sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the Estate argued for a reduced amount.

The court found no reprehensible conduct to justify elevated costs and noted that public policy considerations in estate litigation generally limit recovery to reasonable costs.

The court also disregarded the respondent's offer to settle, finding it lacked meaningful compromise.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $26,963.13 for fees and $2,081.76 for disbursements, payable by the Estate.

Following a passing of accounts application where the respondent beneficiary raised over 150 unsuccessful objections, the applicant estate trustee sought costs against the respondent personally on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that while the respondent's objections were not reasonably necessary for the proper administration of the estate, the applicant's offer to settle lacked any real compromise.

The court ordered the respondent to personally pay $12,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, representing the legal fees incurred in response to his objections, with the remaining $39,710.88 payable from the estate.

The applicant and respondent, who are brothers and equal shareholders in several corporations, commenced competing proceedings alleging oppression, misappropriation of funds, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The respondent brought a motion to convert the applicant's application into an action and consolidate it with his own action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the extensive factual disputes, serious allegations of dishonesty, and need for credibility assessments required a full trial with oral evidence.

The proceedings were consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judicial findings.

The plaintiff sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of residential property occupied rent-free for years, or alternatively damages, on the basis of proprietary estoppel arising from an alleged promise that the property would be left to her by will.

The court held that the evidence did not establish an unambiguous assurance intended to be taken seriously, and that any reliance on such an alleged promise was unreasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances, including later solicitor correspondence and trust documentation preserving the registered owner's control.

The court further found no detriment because the claimed repairs and improvements were ordinary incidents of occupation and were outweighed by the substantial benefit of rent-free residence.

The defendant's statutory counterclaim for wrongful registration of a certificate of pending litigation also failed because the claim to an interest in land was reasonably advanced and no actual damages were proven.

The action was dismissed, vacant possession was ordered within 90 days, and the CPL was discharged.

The estate trustee brought an application to pass the accounts of the estate.

The respondent, a beneficiary and brother of the trustee, raised over 150 objections to the accounts, including challenges to legal fees incurred defending actions he brought against the estate, and expenses for memorializing the deceased in Poland.

The court dismissed all objections, finding the trustee acted reasonably and in good faith.

The accounts were passed, and the trustee was awarded compensation and full indemnification for legal costs from the estate, subject to paying interest on funds she temporarily pre-took for personal use.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter applications under ss. 8, 9, 10(b), and 11(b), and in failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2).

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable or overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings or legal analysis regarding the roadside screening demand, the appellant's waiver of his right to counsel, or the calculation of trial delay.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant estate trustee sought a declaration that the deceased's TFSA and RRIF, which designated the respondent as beneficiary, were subject to a resulting trust in favour of the estate or were the product of undue influence.

The court held that the presumption of resulting trust from Pecore does not apply to beneficiary designations on registered accounts, preferring the reasoning in Amherst Crane and Mak Estate over Calmusky.

The court found no evidence that the deceased intended the accounts to form part of his estate, nor any evidence of undue influence by the respondent.

The application was dismissed and the funds were ordered paid to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim or dismiss the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had previously consented to a judgment for possession following a mortgage default, and his subsequent attempts to set aside the judgment and appeal were dismissed.

The court found that the current action sought to relitigate the same issues already finally adjudicated in the prior mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

Sentencing following convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 15-year-old complainant after a judge-alone trial.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives under the Criminal Code and the Supreme Court's guidance on child sexual offences, and rejected the offender's request for a conditional sentence as unfit.

Aggravating factors included the complainant's age, the significant emotional harm described in the victim impact statement, the offender's exploitation of the complainant's trust, and his lack of insight, remorse, and victim empathy.

Mitigating factors included youth at the time of the offences, absence of a prior record at the time, sobriety efforts, family and church support, and hardship to his business and dependants.

The court imposed 12 months' custody, 3 years' probation, conditional stays on duplicative counts under Kienapple, and ancillary SOIRA, DNA, weapons, no-contact, and child-protection orders.

The accused was stopped for speeding in a construction zone on the 401 in Chatham-Kent County.

During the traffic stop, police detected the odour of cannabis and observed what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette in the vehicle.

Police conducted a search of the vehicle and the accused under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, and subsequently discovered a prohibited firearm, magazines, ammunition, and other items.

The accused was charged with various offences related to possession of prohibited weapons and ammunition.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable grounds to conduct the warrantless search under the Cannabis Control Act, that the detention was arbitrary, and that the accused was handcuffed without objective justification.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A dispute arose between a seller of an endodontics practice and the proposed purchaser regarding the sale of the practice.

The parties executed a Letter of Intent that contained conditions precedent to closing, including the negotiation of a new lease on terms satisfactory to the purchaser and the purchaser's satisfaction with due diligence investigations.

The purchaser terminated the Letter of Intent after learning of key employee departures and difficulties in finalizing the lease agreement.

The seller alleged breach of good faith and honest performance.

The court found no breach, holding that the purchaser exercised his contractual discretion reasonably and in good faith, and was entitled to terminate the transaction when conditions precedent were not met.

The defendant, Thompson Global Group Ltd., brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment dated November 26, 2024, in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff, ZMAC Plumbing Inc., had registered a construction lien and obtained a default judgment after the defendant failed to respond to the statement of claim.

The defendant argued it did not receive the statement of claim because it had moved its business address but failed to update its registered address with Corporations Canada.

The court found the defendant had a plausible excuse for the default, acted promptly upon learning of the judgment, had an arguable defence on the merits regarding incomplete work and inferior materials, and that the interests of justice favored setting aside the default.

The court granted the motion and ordered the defendant to file its statement of defence within twenty days.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the motion, but the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs thrown away in the amount of $3,500.00 all-inclusive.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a second independent medical examination (IME) with a replacement expert.

The defendants' initial expert, Dr. Steven M. Dilkas, conducted an IME on June 26, 2024, but subsequently ceased communicating with the defendants and failed to deliver any report or draft report.

After numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain the report from Dr. Dilkas between August 2024 and January 2025, the defendants retained a replacement expert, Dr. Richard Kaminker, and sought a second IME.

The plaintiff refused consent.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants had adduced sufficient evidence of Dr. Dilkas's non-responsiveness and that the request for a second IME was legitimate and necessary.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants must first pursue a Rule 33.06 motion to compel Dr. Dilkas's report, finding such a requirement would be inefficient and contrary to principles of proportionality.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the second IME with Dr. Kaminker and directed the defendants to reimburse all incidental expenses.

This endorsement addresses the allocation of costs following a dispute over jointly held bank accounts between the estate trustees of Christine Black and her brother, Bruce Albert Chamberlain.

The court found that the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust and that the accounts formed part of the estate.

The applicants sought full indemnity costs, while the respondent argued that all costs should be paid from the estate.

The court awarded the applicants partial indemnity costs, payable personally by the respondent, and declined to order any costs payable from the estate.

This decision concerns the interpretation of a contingency fee retainer agreement between Aylmer Meat Packers Inc. and Richard Walter Clare (the "Client") and their former law firm, Harrison Pensa LLP ("HP").

The court found that HP was not entitled to a contingency fee on a judgment obtained by the Client on appeal after new counsel was retained.

The agreement only entitled HP to a contingency fee on damages recovered prior to or at trial.

The court also rejected HP’s claim for compensation under quantum meruit, holding that the enforceable agreement governed the parties’ rights and obligations.

The applicant, Ann Marie Alexander Bedell, sought interim sole decision-making responsibility for the children and child support based on imputed income to the respondent, Camiel Wayne Bedell.

The court declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility, finding no evidence that joint decision-making was not in the children's best interests.

The court imputed income to the respondent based on his prior earning history, finding he was intentionally under-employed and that his decision to return to school was not a reasonable educational need in the circumstances.

Interim child support was ordered based on an imputed income of $137,610 per annum.

The court dismissed Farm Credit Canada's application for the appointment of a receiver over the assets of Kapital Produce Ltd. and related companies.

The court found that, although there were alleged events of default under the credit agreement, most were cured within the required period and did not constitute actionable defaults.

The court held that the appointment of a receiver was not just or convenient in the circumstances, given the significant value of the security held by FCC, the lack of evidence of irreparable harm or risk to the assets, and the Debtors' ongoing efforts to resolve the indebtedness.