J. C. Kent

BMO Trust Company, as Estate Trustee and Guardian of Property, applied to pass its accounts.

The objector, Lillian Sawchuk, raised numerous objections, leading to a contentious hearing.

Following the judgment which passed the accounts with a minor reduction in BMO's compensation, the court heard submissions on costs.

The total costs claimed exceeded $300,000, disproportionate to the summary nature of the proceeding.

The court applied principles of reasonableness, fairness, proportionality, and access to justice, limiting the costs awarded to BMO, payable by Lillian Sawchuk, to $69,000 plus disbursements, finding that an award of the full amount would be excessive and unreasonable.

No other costs were awarded.

The applicant vendor sought a declaration that the purchaser was in breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for commercial property and that the vendor was entitled to retain the full $750,000 deposit.

The purchaser failed to close due to lack of financing and inability to obtain a Health Canada license for its intended marijuana grow-op business.

The court found the purchaser breached its good faith obligation and had no legal justification for not closing.

However, the court granted the purchaser relief from forfeiture under Section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, finding the total deposit of $750,000 to be unconscionable in the absence of evidence of damages suffered by the vendor.

The forfeited sum was reduced to $350,000.

BMO Trust Company applied to pass its accounts for the Estate of Pauline Medynski and the Guardianship of Andrew Medynski.

The adult daughters of the deceased, particularly Lillian Sawchuk, raised numerous objections.

The court found some deficiencies in BMO's administration, including a failure to claim a $3,800 benefit and communication shortcomings.

While most objections were not monetarily quantifiable, the court ordered a modest reduction in BMO's compensation, specifically $3,800 plus a 6% reduction from the remaining compensation sought.

The court emphasized avoiding turning a passing of accounts into a full trial.

This trial concerned parenting and financial issues following a high-conflict marital breakdown.

The applicant father sought equal parenting time for the youngest child (Hakuin, 10) and custody of the middle child (Sophi, 16), while the respondent mother sought custody or shared custody of the three younger children and a therapeutic intervention for the older children who were estranged from her.

The court considered extensive professional evidence regarding parental alienation and justified rejection.

The court granted the father sole custody of Sophi, respecting her wishes given her age.

For Hakuin, the court maintained the status quo, with primary residence with the mother and the father's existing access schedule, finding this offered the best chance for Hakuin to maintain relationships with both parents despite concerns about sibling influence and parental alienation.

On financial matters, the court imputed income to both parents for child support calculations, ordered child support payments between them for Sophi and Hakuin, and granted spousal support to the mother.

The matrimonial home was ordered sold, with proceeds divided after adjustments.

The plaintiff fuel supplier sued the estate of a deceased transport company operator for unpaid invoices totaling $130,313.15.

The defendant argued the debt belonged to a numbered corporation, not the deceased personally.

The court found that the deceased failed to provide adequate notice to the plaintiff that he was operating through a corporation, as required by the Business Names Act and Business Corporations Act.

The use of the words 'transport company' on a credit application was insufficient notice.

The plaintiff was granted judgment against the estate personally.

The accused faced 12 counts of historical sexual misconduct involving three complainants.

The court analyzed whether the accused were in a position of trust or authority towards the complainants under s. 153 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused were not in a position of trust towards two of the complainants, resulting in the dismissal of several counts.

For the primary complainant, the court found a position of trust existed until she turned 16, but did not continue thereafter, leading to the dismissal of charges against the co-accused.

However, applying the W(D) framework, the court accepted the primary complainant's evidence regarding the principal accused and found him guilty of four counts of sexual misconduct.

The parties separated after a 13-year relationship and 10-year marriage.

The applicant sought an equal division of the proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned farm, while the respondent argued for an unequal division because he paid the majority of the down payment.

The court ordered the property sold and the proceeds divided equally, finding that an equal division was not unconscionable under section 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment, child support arrears, and ongoing spousal support of $750 per month, while declining to order occupational rent due to a set-off against mortgage payments.

Following dismissal of the defendants’ motion for leave to appeal orders made in a class proceeding, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court considered the complexity of the class action and the substantial materials filed but found the hourly rates claimed by counsel excessive.

The court also reduced photocopying disbursements due to unnecessary duplication.

The plaintiff was awarded reduced costs reflecting reasonable fees and adjusted disbursements.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on a charge of assisting an offender contrary to s. 463(a) of the Criminal Code.

The reviewing court considered whether there was at least a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the offence, including knowledge of the underlying offence, assistance to the principal offender, and specific intent to help the offender escape liability.

The applicant argued the circumstantial evidence supporting specific intent permitted innocent explanations and that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to properly apply the Shephard standard.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence could reasonably support an inference of the required intent and that the committing judge correctly applied the test of whether a properly instructed jury could convict.

The application to quash the committal was dismissed.

On a motion for partial summary judgment in a family law proceeding, the respondent husband sought a declaration that a 2011 agreement transferring the wife’s interest in the former matrimonial home remained valid and binding.

The wife sought to set aside the agreement and brought a cross‑motion for temporary spousal support.

The court found no evidence of undue influence and held the agreement was substantively fair, despite the written document omitting reference to consideration paid for the transfer.

Applying the summary judgment principles from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted the declaration.

The court also fixed retroactive spousal support arrears and ordered nominal ongoing support due to the husband’s limited income.

The defendants sought leave to appeal orders granting the plaintiff leave under s. 138.8 of the Ontario Securities Act to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims and certifying the proceeding as a securities class action.

The proposed appeal challenged, among other issues, the treatment of U.S. SEC disclosure documents as potential “core documents” and the certification of a global shareholder class alongside a negligent misrepresentation claim.

The court held that the motions judge applied the correct “reasonable possibility of success” standard for statutory leave and was entitled to defer final determinations about the core/non-core document classification to trial.

The court also found no misapplication of appellate authority concerning certification of parallel statutory and common law claims.

As there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders, leave to appeal was refused.

A family law trial determined the amount of retroactive child support and reimbursement for special or extraordinary expenses following a motion to change an earlier support order.

The applicant sought child support arrears for years predating a prior order and payment of s.7 expenses including orthodontic treatment and extracurricular activities.

The court applied the principles from the Supreme Court of Canada decision in D.B.S. and found the payor’s conduct blameworthy, including failing to disclose income and failing to provide required tax documentation.

As a result, the court granted retroactive support beyond the typical three‑year limitation and ordered payment of arrears plus the respondent’s proportionate share of special and extraordinary expenses.

A dispute arose among partners in a long‑standing farming partnership following notice of termination given under the partnership agreement.

The court was asked to interpret provisions of the partnership agreement concerning termination, partner draws, and occupation of homes situated on partnership property.

The court held that the partnership terminated six months after written notice and declared that all partnership draws should have ceased upon termination.

The court further determined that partners occupying houses on the farm were required to pay fair market value rent from the date of termination while winding up the partnership.

Orders were made directing the sale of farm equipment, cattle, and the farm property within specified timelines.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff, a resident of the United States, to post security for costs in a wrongful dismissal action.

The court considered the plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the stage of the litigation, and the apparent merits of the claim.

Evidence indicated the plaintiff had limited financial resources and that his financial situation may have been affected by the defendants’ conduct in relocating him to Canada for employment.

The court found the claim possessed some merit and that requiring substantial security could effectively terminate the litigation and undermine access to justice.

In the circumstances, the court declined to order security for costs.

The plaintiffs brought a civil action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a vehicle owned by one defendant and driven by her daughter.

The central issue was whether the registered owner had given express or implied consent for the daughter to possess and operate the vehicle at the time of the accident under s. 192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

After reviewing jurisprudence on implied consent and the principles governing possession of motor vehicles, the court found the daughter was not a co-owner and had taken the vehicle without the owner’s consent.

Considering the daughter’s understanding of licence restrictions, the circumstances under which she took the keys while her parents slept, and the owner’s evidence regarding strict limitations on use, the court held that implied consent had not been established.

The action against the vehicle owner was therefore dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final divorce order regarding child support and the division of air miles.

The court found the air miles issue moot due to a clawback and transfer costs.

The court ordered the Family Responsibility Office to credit the father for two direct payments of $600 and to reduce arrears for one child who was only attending school part-time.

Regarding the adult disabled child, the court declined to terminate support, ordering it to continue pending the outcome of the child's application for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits.

The defendants moved for judgment under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure based on the plaintiffs’ accepted offer to settle.

The plaintiffs had made a written offer prior to trial that remained open until one minute after the commencement of trial, and the defendants accepted the offer months later after the trial had been adjourned.

The responding parties argued the court should exercise its discretion not to enforce the settlement because significant additional litigation expenses had been incurred after the adjournment.

The court held that discretion to refuse judgment on an accepted offer should be exercised only in rare circumstances and that the facts did not justify departing from the policy favouring enforcement of settlements.

Judgment was therefore granted in accordance with the accepted offer.

The vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing multiple civil actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by her 17‑year‑old son while impaired.

The central issue was whether the son had the owner's implied consent to possess and operate the vehicle, engaging owner liability principles.

The court held that the issue of implied consent could properly be determined on summary judgment where the evidentiary record was complete and no responding party adduced evidence.

Accepting the son's consistent discovery evidence that he did not believe he had permission and had taken the vehicle without consent, the court found no implied consent on a balance of probabilities.

The actions against the vehicle owner were dismissed.

Following a 21‑day personal injury trial concerning municipal liability for road conditions and signage, the successful plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $1,045,000.

The court considered the complexity of the litigation, the extensive expert evidence, and the reasonableness of the fees and disbursements claimed.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay rather than fully reflective of the successful party’s expenditures, the court concluded that the amounts claimed exceeded reasonable expectations.

Significant reductions were made to both fees and disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $406,000 in fees and $200,000 in disbursements, plus applicable taxes.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a conviction entered following a guilty plea, relying on a mental health assessment suggesting he may have been suffering from schizoaffective disorder at the time of the plea.

The assessment raised the possibility that the appellant may have been not criminally responsible.

The court noted that fresh evidence may be admitted on appeal to establish lack of criminal responsibility but that more than a mere possibility would ultimately be required to succeed.

The appellant also alleged that the Crown failed to disclose police reports documenting his mental illness at the time of the original proceedings.

The court granted an extension of time to appeal and deemed the notice of appeal served with the motion materials to have been served on time.