Jasmine T. Akbarali

On a motion for interim dependent's support from her late husband's estate, the applicant, a 91-year-old widow with dementia, sought ongoing support, retroactive support, and interim costs.

The estate conceded entitlement but disputed quantum and costs.

The court ordered the estate to pay the applicant's monthly retirement home fees, awarded retroactive support to the date of request, and found special circumstances justifying an interim costs award, though it adjourned the quantum of costs for further evidentiary filings.

In an application to pass estate accounts nearly two decades after death, the court held the estate trustee's narrative materials did not satisfy the accounting obligations imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the trustee failed to keep proper books, engaged in admitted self-dealing, provided non-credible evidence, and could not account for key estate assets and transactions.

Applying the court's remedial jurisdiction under s. 49 of the Estates Act, the court declined to speculate on unsupported losses but awarded the estate $6,811.22 for the proven shortfall in liquid assets.

The court denied trustee compensation because the trustee's record-keeping failures, co-mingling, and lack of cooperation made a proper accounting impossible.

Costs were deferred for further written submissions.

On an urgent estates motion, the applicant sought interim dependent's support and the appointment of an estate trustee during litigation pending a dependent support application.

The court held the evidentiary record was incomplete and did not establish that the applicant was receiving support from the deceased or fell within an enumerated dependent category under Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act.

Interim support was therefore refused.

However, because estate bills were going unpaid and the estate property was at risk, the court appointed an estate trustee during litigation on usual terms, with the trustee's fees to be borne initially by the applicant's share of the estate subject to reallocation at the merits hearing.

No costs were awarded because the applicant was only partly successful and the motion process was unfair to the self-represented respondent.

In an estates dispute over jointly held property alleged to be held on resulting trust for the deceased's estate, the moving party sought summary judgment dismissing the trust claim as statute-barred and extending that ruling to a related passing of accounts application.

The court held that summary judgment is not available in an application, applying the Court of Appeal's direction that Rule 20 is restricted to actions.

The court further declined to convert the matter into a partial hearing of substantive issues, finding that piecemeal adjudication would be disproportionate given the overlap between the trust claim, the estate trustee's accounting obligations, and potential breach of duty issues.

The limitation issue was left for determination at a joint hearing of both applications, and costs were deferred.

The applicant brought an urgent application in Toronto challenging the deceased's will and seeking dependent's support, after being excluded from the deceased's home in Burlington.

The court, on its own initiative, raised the issue of venue under Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no rational connection to Toronto other than the location of the parties' lawyers, and noting the strain of forum shopping on judicial resources, the court ordered the proceeding transferred to Milton in the Central West judicial region.

The applicant and respondent, co-estate trustees, disputed the administration of an estate.

The applicant sought disclosure of the deceased's pre-death financial records and access to a condominium to inspect chattels.

The respondent argued these issues should be referred to an accountant pursuant to a mandatory referral clause in the will.

The court held that the condominium access issue was an administrative matter caught by the referral clause.

However, the disclosure issue related to the estate trustees' fiduciary duties to identify assets and was not subject to the referral clause.

The court ordered limited disclosure of pre-death financial records (six months for sole accounts, two years for joint accounts) to allow the applicant to investigate potential self-dealing by the respondent.

Each party was ordered to bear their own costs due to divided success and intransigent positions.

The applicant mother sought a declaration that her adult son held his joint interest in her property on a resulting or constructive trust, alleging she did not intend to gift him the interest and that he exercised undue influence.

The court found the presumption of resulting trust applied but was rebutted, as the evidence showed the mother intended to gift the joint interest to effectuate her testamentary plan.

The court dismissed the claims of undue influence and unjust enrichment, finding the mother acted freely and the gift constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The application was dismissed, and the mother was ordered to pay costs.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault and assault against his intimate partner.

The offences involved forced penetrative intercourse without a condom after consent was withdrawn, followed by the defendant physically forcing the complainant to take an emergency contraceptive pill.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors, including the defendant's prior record for intimate partner violence and the profound impact on the complainant, against mitigating factors such as family support and systemic anti-Black racism.

The court sentenced the defendant to 4.5 years for sexual assault and 9 months concurrent for assault, less 329 days of pre-sentence credit.

The applicants, children and attorneys for property and personal care of the respondent, sought a declaration that he is incapable and to be appointed his guardians.

The respondent, who has Alzheimer's disease, had moved in with a woman who isolated him and interfered with his care.

The court found the respondent incapable of making decisions regarding his shelter and incapable of instructing his section 3 counsel.

The court appointed the applicants as partial guardians for personal care with respect to shelter, granting them the power to apprehend the respondent, and issued a restraining order limiting the woman's access to him.

The applicant son brought an urgent motion to suspend the 2024 powers of attorney appointing the respondent daughter as the attorney for property and personal care for their incapable mother.

The applicant alleged elder abuse and neglect by the respondent.

The court found the applicant's evidence of misconduct unreliable and often contradicted by medical and functional assessments.

Applying the test for terminating a power of attorney, the court held the applicant failed to show strong and compelling evidence of misconduct or neglect.

The motion was dismissed on an interim interim basis, the 2024 powers of attorney remained in force, and the mother was permitted to return to the respondent's care.

The respondent was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $45,000.

Sentencing for repeated sexual abuse of a child by a close family member, including digital and penile penetration, physical restraint, threats, and forcing the child to look at the offender's penis.

The court rejected the defence argument that the exposure conviction should be stayed under the Kienapple principle, holding that forcing the child to look at the offender's penis while he put on a condom was a factually distinct wrong from the sexual interference.

Applying the modern sentencing framework for child sexual offences, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, substantial harm to the child, breach of trust, repeated abuse over many months, and the child’s vulnerability.

The court also considered significant collateral consequences to the offender's spouse, children, and extended family, and imposed a sentence below the Crown's request but far above the defence position.

A six-year penitentiary term for sexual interference and a concurrent one-year term for exposure were imposed, together with lifetime SOIRA and other ancillary orders.

The applicant sought to appoint an interim succeeding estate trustee for her late father's estate.

The current estate trustee, the applicant's mother, had experienced a significant mental decline, was hospitalized under a Form 2, and had depleted trust assets while failing to meet obligations such as filing tax returns.

Relying on its parens patriae jurisdiction, the court suspended the current trustee's authority and appointed the applicant's half-sister as the interim succeeding estate trustee without requiring a bond, to protect the applicant's interests and prevent further loss to the trust.

The respondent sought an extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity of certain provisions of the Citizenship Act.

The declaration was originally suspended for six months from December 19, 2023, and has been extended multiple times.

The respondent sought an extension to January 20, 2026 (reduced from April 22, 2026 by consent).

The court granted a two-month extension to January 20, 2026, noting significant progress in enacting replacement legislation with a reasonable expectation that it may come into force by the end of 2025.

The court adjourned the balance of the motion to January 13, 2026.

This is a continued certification motion in a class action alleging that the defendant misused class members' data by making it available to third parties without consent.

The court declined to certify the proceeding on multiple grounds: the proposed class definition was not workable, as it required individual inquiries to develop a Master Class List and was both under-inclusive and over-inclusive; the nominal damages issue could not be certified as a common issue because individual issues were woven into its determination; the proceeding was not the preferable procedure given the absence of evidence of compensable loss and the availability of regulatory proceedings; and the litigation plan was unworkable given the size of the class and the numerous individual inquiries required.

The defendant was awarded costs of $500,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of property obtained from an indictable offence contrary to s. 355(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a trial without jury, the defendant was found not guilty of the charges but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of a Schedule 1 substance contrary to s. 4(1) of the CDSA.

At sentencing, the Crown sought time served plus 18 months probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence plus 12 months probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, emphasizing rehabilitation as the primary sentencing objective given the defendant's long-standing opioid addiction and lack of prior custodial sentences.

The court acquitted the defendant, A.C., of three counts of sexual assault, finding the evidence did not establish lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted the defendant’s evidence as credible and consistent, and found significant inconsistencies and credibility concerns in the complainant’s testimony.

The court also found the defendant guilty of mischief and failing to comply with an undertaking, in accordance with his plea.

The defendant, S.V., was tried on two counts of sexual assault and one count of assault.

The first sexual assault charge, alleging that the defendant forced the complainant to touch his penis, resulted in an acquittal because the court had a reasonable doubt.

The second sexual assault charge, alleging that the defendant ejaculated inside the complainant without her consent and contrary to their agreement, resulted in a conviction.

The defendant was also convicted of assault for grabbing the complainant's neck and face to force her to take an emergency contraceptive pill.

The defendants, who faced multiple firearms and drug charges, applied to exclude evidence seized from a residence and a cell phone, arguing their Charter rights were violated.

The court determined that the warrantless arrest of one of the defendants was not supported by reasonable and probable grounds, making the subsequent search incident to arrest unlawful.

Additionally, the court found that the search warrants for both the residence and the cell phone lacked sufficient bases once unconstitutionally obtained and misleading information was excised.

Consequently, the court excluded all the seized evidence, including firearms and controlled substances, under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found J.A.S.G. guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault against his estranged spouse, following a trial in which the complainant was the sole witness.

The decision reviews the legal principles of credibility, consent, and the assessment of evidence in sexual assault cases, and applies them to the facts as found.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable, and found that the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, sought a 12-month extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity regarding the first-generation limit on derivative citizenship in the Citizenship Act.

The court had previously declared the provisions unconstitutional under sections 6 and 15 of the Charter but suspended the declaration to allow Parliament to pass remedial legislation.

Due to the recent prorogation and dissolution of Parliament for a general election, the government was unable to pass the remedial bill.

The court granted a shorter extension of the suspension to November 20, 2025, balancing the need for Parliament to address the complex legislative scheme against the ongoing rights violations of affected individuals.