J. Bryan Shaughnessy

The accused was charged with arson contrary to s. 433(a) of the Criminal Code after a fire was discovered in a wall cavity of a dwelling occupied by her romantic partner.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally ignited combustible material in the wall as a diversion after she was unable to provide funds for a joint real estate transaction, thereby risking the occupant’s life.

Expert evidence from the Office of the Fire Marshal concluded the fire originated in a pre‑existing hole in the basement stairwell wall and was caused by the intentional application of an open flame to combustible material.

The court rejected defence theories that the fire was staged or set by the complainant and found the accused’s testimony not credible, applying the credibility framework in R. v. W. (D.).

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused damage by fire to an occupied dwelling.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for assault arising from a domestic altercation.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the analytical framework in R. v. W.(D.), failed to address key credibility issues, and provided reasons that prevented meaningful appellate review.

The appellate court found that the trial judge’s reasons mischaracterized parts of the evidentiary record and failed to resolve significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, including prior statements and testimony affecting credibility.

Given the central importance of credibility and unresolved live issues, the reasons were insufficient to disclose the basis for the verdict.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The responding spouse brought a motion seeking an order declaring the opposing party a vexatious litigant pursuant to s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court reviewed the extensive litigation history arising from the parties’ matrimonial dispute, including repeated motions, appeals, and collateral proceedings in multiple courts attempting to relitigate issues already determined.

The court found that the litigant persistently commenced proceedings without reasonable grounds, failed to pay outstanding cost orders, and continued to advance allegations of conspiracy and misconduct against judges, lawyers, and third parties.

Applying the principles governing vexatious proceedings, the court concluded that the conduct constituted harassment and oppression through abusive litigation.

An order was made prohibiting the litigant from instituting or continuing proceedings in any Ontario court without leave of the Regional Senior Judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against financial advisors and their dealer, alleging they systemically recommended a 'Leveraging Scheme' to borrow money to invest in mutual funds without regard to suitability.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, the class was identifiable, and common issues existed regarding the duty of care, breach of duty, and punitive damages.

The court declined to certify damages as a common issue, finding it required individual assessment.

The court also held that a class proceeding was preferable to the Ombudsman for Banking and Investment Services (OBSI) process, which lacked binding remedial powers and adequate investor participation.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence of an MFDA settlement was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action alleging that a surgeon breached the standard of care by recommending and performing revisional bariatric surgery following the failure of an earlier gastric partitioning procedure.

Liability was the sole issue at trial, as causation and damages were agreed upon subject to that determination.

The court considered extensive expert evidence concerning whether the patient was an appropriate candidate for revisionary bariatric surgery, including the relevance of the 1991 NIH bariatric surgery guidelines and the assessment of obesity‑related co‑morbidities.

The court held that candidacy for revisionary bariatric surgery involves the exercise of clinical judgment and that strict adherence to the NIH guidelines is not determinative, particularly where a prior bariatric procedure has mechanically failed.

The surgeon reasonably relied on the patient’s history, weight regain, gastroscopy findings confirming failure of the prior surgery, and a dietician’s assessment in determining candidacy.

The court concluded that the surgeon met the applicable standard of care.

Siblings sought an order under s. 3(1) of the Partition Act for the sale of a jointly owned parcel of land inherited through a family arrangement.

The defendant claimed beneficial ownership of the property through a resulting trust, asserting he had funded the purchase and mortgage payments and that the parents held title in trust for him.

The court rejected the resulting trust claim, finding documentary and testimonial evidence established the property was intended to be held in trust for all six siblings in equal shares.

Expert appraisal evidence demonstrated that a dwelling constructed by the defendant added no value to the property’s highest and best use as future residential development land.

The court ordered sale of the property with proceeds divided equally among the six siblings and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim.